Director Report Card: James Gunn (2010)

2. Super

There was something in the air at the end of the last decade. Superhero movies had been around long enough that it was apparent they weren't going away. Yet the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which cemented cape movies as the crowning filmic trend of our time, was just getting started. Nevertheless, there was a brief period where a bunch of people had the same idea: What if a real person became a superhero? From 2008 to 2010, indies like “Special,” “Defendor,” “Boy Wonder,” and “Griff the Invisible” came out. Definitive deconstructed superhero text “Watchmen” hit theaters in 2009 while 2010's “Kick-Ass” made the biggest impression on audiences. Coming shortly after that was “Super,” James Gunn's long-simmering – he started writing the script in 2002 – follow-up to “Slither.” Unfairly compared to the glossier “Kick-Ass” at the time, Gunn's film won divisive reviews and didn't find much of an audience. But I'm here to tell you that “Super” isn't just the best film of this particular wave of superhero flicks. It's one of the best superhero movies period.

Frank Darbo has lived a life of misery and humiliation. He believes he’s only had two perfect moments: A brief instance where he helped a police officer catch a fleeing criminal and when he married his wife, Sarah. A recovering addict, Sarah has slowly been getting back into drugs and eventually leaves Frank for her dealer, Jacques. This breaks Frank. In his desperation, he seems to have a vision from God, inspiring him to become a superhero named the Crimson Bolt. Armed with a simple pipe wrench, he goes about brutally bashing small time crooks – or anyone he deems in violation of the rules – with “rescuing” Sarah being his ultimate goal. Frank’s way in over his head, of course. After befriending an unhinged comic book clerk named Libbie, who self-appoints as his sidekick, his journey only grows more disturbing.

What makes “Super” especially subversive is that it’s not really about superheroes at all. Frank is not a comics fan. Seemingly his only previous exposure to masked heroics is a cheap Christian television show called the Holy Avenger. “Super” is not paying homage to Marvel and DC the same way “Slither” did to eighties horror. Gunn’s main inspiration for “Super” was likely his 2007 divorce from actress Jenna Fischer. The film is all about the masculine sense of loss felt at the abrupt end of a relationship. Specifically, Frank is grappling with his male entitlement, saying Sarah belongs to him and must be returned. That his “acts of heroism” largely involves beating petty criminals to bloody pulps with a wrench draws his mentally instability, and the absurdity of the entire superhero premise, into sharper focus. “Super” paints becoming a superhero as an act of toxic masculinity and insanity. By circumnavigating most of the specifics of the superhero, “Super” ends up being more insightful about the genre than most other films attempting to deconstruct it.

Frank is also, the movie repeatedly points out, pathetic. He’s not very smart. The opening montage shows the crueler humiliations from his life, including his prom date sleeping with the photographer. He makes childish crayon drawings and seems pretty clueless about his wife’s wants and needs. Yet there is also a startling humanity to his patheticness. After Sarah leaves, he gets on his knees and prays to God. He tears himself down, calling himself stupid and ugly. Rainn Wilson ugly-cries through the bracing monologue, making what could’ve been a cruel joke into a touching display of utter vulnerability. “Super” in general, and Wilson specifically, are totally sincere in their depiction of Frank as a not-bad person that is completely broken down by the sense of loss in his life.

As serious as “Super” takes Frank, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a source of humor. “Super” is a really funny movie and a big source of that is Frank’s strangeness as a character. A gag the film successfully returns to is how bad he is at lying. While trying to do research for his crime fighting quest, he wears an obviously fake beard. When the librarian calls him on this, he doubles down in claiming the beard is real. Later, a police detective comes for a standard visit to Frank’s house, which the would-be hero makes more suspicious by his shifty behavior. His attempts to cover this up just makes him look more guilty. Later, while talking about the Crimson Bolt with a co-worker, Frank changes his opinion and doubles back several times, to the co-worker’s bafflement. Rainn Wilson’s utter commitment to Frank’s half-assed attempts at lying makes this running gag way funnier than it would’ve been otherwise.

Another source of humor is how divine inspiration plays a role in Frank’s quest. Early on, he rather nonchalantly drops the revelation that he's received visions from God his entire life. That he never second-guesses the source of these visions says a lot about Frank's grasp on reality. The way Gunn portrays these visions adds to the comedy. Demonic faces are crudely pasted over the faces of evil-doers, their voices digitally distorted in bizarre ways. This leads up to the biggest freak-out in the film, the elaborate vision of God's finger touching Frank's brain and planting the idea of a becoming a superhero, with the assistant of some naughty tentacles and a paint-roller. An audaciously hilarious moment, Gunn also makes sure the audience doesn't take this presentation at face value. Frank's holy vision is inspired by bad television. The tentacles come from a bit of hentai he crosses on cable. Everything else, meanwhile, is boosted by a super low-budget “Bibleman” style television series, Gunn perfectly imitating the crude production values of such a series. It's pretty clear that Gunn is painting the steadfast motivations of various superheroes – Batman's quest against crime, for example – as ridiculous and impractical concepts.

Among the film's most biting criticism of comic book fandom, and its most entertaining character, is Libbie. Libbie has a boundless youthful energy, randomly doing handstands or crouching behind a desk. She has no filter, mocking Frank's name after specifically asking him not to mock her's or dropping offensive language. The twist is that Libbie isn't merely a quirky female character in an indie movie. She's a full-blown sadistic psychopath, who derives clear glee from hurting people and with zero regard for traditional morality. She takes way too much pleasure in viciously exterminating criminals, treating life-and-death like a game. Bringing this difficult character to life is Ellen Page at her most breathtakingly gorgeous. Ellen easily nails the limitless enthusiasm of Libbie while never betraying her child-like psychosis. Libbie is a very dangerous person but doesn't consider it a big deal at all, a contrast Page fantastically realizes.

That Libbie is a dangerous nut that does and says whatever she wants paints a pretty clear picture of what a superheroic sidekick would be in real life: A lunatic, a thrill-seeker, or both. (She's also in her twenties, a bit old for a “kid” sidekick.) “Super” continues to slyly mocks the superhero traditions throughout. Frank's weapon is not a high-tech suit of armor or specially made batarangs. It's just a plain old pipe wrench. His costume is an ugly mishmash of material woven together by someone with no experience in needlework. The pithiest catchphrase he can muster is “Shut up crime!,” a juvenile statement screamed with the conviction of a madman. He spends most of his patrols hanging out and waiting for something to happen, which it rarely does. When he does fight, it ends in one of two ways. Either he's embarrassed or seriously injured during combat... Or he bashes unsuspecting people into unconsciousness with a wrench. His incompetence and humiliation play as absurd comedy, with the severe beatings he hands out – Gunn's violence is gloriously R-rated – his victims rolling out as especially dark humor.

The severity of the movie's violence is, in fact, preparing the audience for what's to come. There's an intentional and hard tonal shift in the movie's last act. While taking the fight to Jacques' compound, wearing armor and wielding weapons, reality ensues. Libbie has her head suddenly, graphically blown off. Frank becomes a hardened executioner, blowing away limbs with bombs and killing goons at point-blank range as they beg for mercy. Gunn adds comic book sound effects over these acts of realistic violence, drawing the contrast between real life murder and comic book action into sharp relief. Yet the brutality of the last act is amazingly effective on its own, “Super” transforming into a disturbing crime film totally assured of its convictions. It's an amazing gut-punch of a switch, the thoroughly disarmed audience drawn completely into a brutal and ugly finale.

That tonal shift left a bad taste in many people's mouths. That's not the only element of “Super” that'll make you uncomfortable. Much of the film's comedy is what we'd call “problematic” today. Offensive slurs, once part of the common nerd vernacular but now rendered verboten in today's climate, are flung around easily. The bad guys and supporting cast members often talk in the kind of outrageous language familiar from Gunn's Troma days. Yet the most offensive moments comes when Libbie, sexually aroused by a day of crime-fighting, attempts to seduce Frank. Faithful to Sarah, he's not interested. But Libbie doesn't take no for an answer. I've seen the scene that follows referred to as deeply offensive, hilarious or even erotic. How exactly you are supposed to take the scene is hard to say and the movie could've functioned without it. You're also not going to forget it any time soon either.

As a visual filmmaker, Gunn has already come such a long way since “Slither.” “Super's” direction occupies two worlds. Many of the film's scenes are shot in a gritty, seemingly handheld style. Gunn's camera often follows the characters as they move around the unnamed but harshly industrial city, capturing the realistic world the film is set in. This is often contrasted with the colorful montages of the Crimson Bolt's superheroic adventures. Comic book graphics flash on the screen during these moments, gifting the movie with a sure-footed sense of whimsy. Yet there are surreal touches too and not just in tentacle-laden fantasy scenes. Frank's recollection of his first night with Sarah has the furniture casually moving around them. Or in Frank's meeting with the Holy Avenger, in a clear white room. It's a really interesting looking movie, that's for sure.

While Wilson and Page are clearly the stars of the show, “Super” does have an accomplished supporting cast. Liv Taylor often comes off as blank in other films. Here she shows a humanistic trauma during most of her scenes, even coming off as charming or insightful when Sarah is sober. Gunn regulars like Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker show up in understated roles, Henry as a cop just doing his job and Rooker as a thug that approaches his rough business casually. Nathan Fillion is hilariously uptight as the Holy Avenger, delivering preposterously self-righteous dialogue with a totally straight face. Kevin Bacon steals the show as Jacques, a childish and petty man who doesn't often considers the consequences of his actions. He even seems somewhat prissy about the nasty side of his business, Bacon playing the villain as a conceited teenage brat trapped in a grown man's body.

“Super's” world is one of contrast. It's opening credits are portrayed as a ridiculous cartoon, packed with gory violence. It's score shifts between willowy choirs and hard action movie bass. The back-and-forth Gunn brings to the material, seesawing between absurd humor and extreme violence, isn't going to appeal to everyone. Yet “Super” is a movie I grow more fond of every time I see it. Beautifully acted, deeply sincere in its emotions, and one hundred percent successful at the different tones it aims for, it all builds up to a genuinely touching epilogue. Maybe I'm alone in loving this oddball movie that is a gonzo comedy, a harsh crime thriller, an outrageous cult experience, and a strange deconstruction of the superhero concept. More for me than, because I think “Super” is fucking great. [Grade: A]

Halloween 2018: October 24

The Wicker Man (1973)

Over the last two years, I've suddenly heard the term “folk horror” a lot. This particular classification is hard to define but it usually involves a rural setting, pagan rituals, and folkloric beliefs. The folk horror film that towers over all others is Robin Hardy's “The Wicker Man.” One of the crowning cult classics of seventies horror, its following has only grown over the years. Legends of its infamously lost original cut added to this reputation. Some even consider it among the greatest horror films ever made. Despite this notoriety, I have always been somewhat underwhelmed with “The Wicker Man.” But Halloween is almost here and I haven't seen Christopher Lee yet this season, so I decided now was a good time to revisit this landmark film.

British police sergeant Neil Howie is investigating the disappearance of Rowan Morrison, a young girl. A resident of Summerisle, Rowan has been missing for several months. As he delves deeper, Howie is given contradictory information. The girl is alive, the girl is dead, the girl never existed. Moreover, the sergeant is disgusted by the islanders' pagan religion, which is taught in their schools and celebrated in public. As a devout Christian, he finds their magical rituals and wanton sexuality disturbing. As Howie investigates further, he believes a conspiracy is afoot. He's right but not quite in the way he thinks.

When I first saw “The Wicker Man,” I was surprised that this film is considered a great horror movie. I have a very elastic definition of horror but I didn't find the film suspenseful, thrilling, grotesque, and only a little macabre. Re-watching it in 2018, I still think it's barely a horror movie. If anything, “The Wicker Man” is a comedy. Watching Howie respond to the islander's beliefs, going from bewilderment to annoyance to outright disgust, is pretty amusing. The Summerisle folks also behave in a very exaggerated manner. They decorate with topiary penises. They have orgies in graveyards. The druggist sells dried-up foreskins. Every song or rhyme they speak is an obvious double entendre. If “The Wicker Man” isn't a comedy about a cripplingly virginal Christian fuddy-duddy stuck on the horniest island in the world, what else is it?

Those pagan songs and dances take up a lot of time. Sometimes, these moments are effective. I'm not going to argue about the greatness of that last act. Howie disguising himself in a parade, watching different people pass through a pentagram made of swords, generates some tension. But there's so much singing and dancing, you guys. Yes, the landlord's daughter attempting to seduce Howie is an erotic and enticing sequence. Yet the previous shanty in the pub? The guy singing as the kids dance around the maypole? The naked women leaping over the fire, performing another song? Each one of these scenes brings the pace to a screeching halt. And there's just so many of them.

Admittedly, part of why “The Wicker Man” doesn't work for me is not the movie's fault. The twist ending is brilliant. It upends expectations, with the sudden realization that Howie has been the prey all along. That he is the virgin sacrifice and that the entire plot has been a ploy to bring him here. This ending is also the only thing everyone knows about the film. It's on the friggin' poster, for goodness' sake. “The Wicker Man” may be a brilliant thriller. Most of those thrills are deflated when you know where everything is going. The film is definitely among the rank of movies where the twist endings are well known. Unlike “Psycho,” “Citizen Kane,” or “Planet of the Apes,” the movie's potency is deeply effected by its conclusion being common knowledge.

Having said all that, the cast is brilliant. Edward Woodward is the perfect comedic foil to Summerisle's free-lovin' pagans. His incredulity at everything happening around him is pitch perfect. The way he descends into weeping and blubbering at the end is especially inspired. Christopher Lee gives perhaps his greatest performance as Lord Summerisle. The confrontation between Lee and Woodward is the film's best scene. Woodward preaches Christian values and Lee dismisses them with a cocked grin. Lee's commanding voice and presence is also perfectly utilized in the part. Eckland is certainly expertly deployed in her few scenes, as is Ingrid Pitt.

There are definitely things about “The Wicker Man” that I admire. The cast, mostly. A few key scenes. The design of the titular entity, which is rightfully iconic. It's a movie that should really work for me but, for a handful of reasons, doesn't quite get there. But no mind. The film's cult adherents are welcomed to it. That allegiance has inspired a number of interesting tie-ins. There was a spiritual sequel, the merit of which people debate, as well as a stage adaptation. The more off-beat additions include a pretty good Iron Maiden song and, of all things, a roller coaster. There was also that remake, which is a dreadful movie but a hilarious Youtube compilation video. [7/10]

The Cured (2017)

In the past, I've bemoaned the current state of Ellen Page's career. I don't think she's actually been in a movie more than a dozen people have seen since “X-Men: Days of Future Past.” Mostly, she's been headlining artsy-fartsy fair and none of it exceptionally good. (With an occasional studio role in something like “Flatliners,” which is even worse.) Nevertheless, I've watched my way through each of her new films because my love is that great. When “The Cured” was announced, originally under the equally generic title of “The Third Wave,” I was not impressed. Zombie movies are totally dried up and the film's flip on things didn't sound compelling. But, I secretly hoped, maybe a flashy indie genre effort would perk up Ellen's career? No luck. “The Cured” is pretty much exactly what I thought it would be.

So here's the twist. In “The Cured,” the zombie outbreak happened in the past. Something called the Maze Virus turned people into infectious, rabid murderers. Ireland was especially badly hit by the incident. That's in the past though. A cure has been developed, turning 75% of the infected back into normal humans. The cured, however, remember everything they did as zombies and face persecution from both the government and the public. (And there's the question of what to do with the resistant zombies.) Senan is one such cured. After being released, he goes to live with his sister-in-law and nephew. Senan doesn't tell her that, while infected, he killer his brother/her husband. Soon, Senan is entangled with a militant group of cured, looking to stand up to oppression.

From the minute George Romero put pen to paper, the zombie movie has been a conduit for social commentary. “The Cured” is obviously making a political statement. The cured are an oppressed minority, attacked by a public that considers them monsters and a government that considers them baggage. This connects the former zombies to any number of persecuted social groups, from LGBT to non-white races. (The scientist working on the cure is gay, making the former interpretation unavoidable) Yet this metaphor is quickly muddled. Conor was part of the same zombie pack as Senan. Now, he's leading the militant cured. Eventually, this group releases the remaining zombies and cause chaos, Conor emerging as an obvious villain. So, wait, the government and the public was right to be prejudiced? “The Cured” tries to have it both way, making its zombies both victims and villains. This makes its political stance wishy-washy and meaningless.

As a horror movie, “The Cured” doesn't raise many goosebumps. The Irish setting is overcast and rainy, creating an immensely dour atmosphere. The weight of the story is so heavy, that any personality or heart is quickly squeezed out. Not helping matters is David Freyne's direction, making his feature debut here. When the zombies are finally unleashed at the end, Freyne turns up the shaky-cam. The result feels like warmed over “28 Days Later,” with scenes of sprinting infected chasing people through a dreary city. The infected's tendency to tackle people suddenly border on the comedic. The only moments that generate any tension at all do not feature the zombies. A sequence devoted to Abby attempting to escape the Cured's compound, eventually sneaking through a window, is mildly suspenseful. So is a scene where Conor confronts her on a park bench. It seems people are a lot scarier than these ghouls.

Unsurprisingly, “The Cured” is mostly worth seeing because of Ellen. Her performance is a highlight of the film. When Senan reveals that he killed her husband as a zombie, her subsequent freak-out is heartbreaking. Her attempts to rescue her child in the last act nicely mix desperation and frustration. She even gets in a few action beats, taking out a few zombies with an ax or a pistol. The rest of the cast is a more mixed bag. Tom Vaughn-Lawlor plays Conor, nicely coming off as sympathetic in the early scenes before growing more sinister as the film goes on. Sadly, Sam Keeley is an aggressively maudlin bore as Senan.

Do we need any further proof that the zombie fad is burned out? “The Cured” is what passes for a reinvention of the subgenre at this point. It's a ponderous film, deeply self-assured of its own importance. It's also incredibly dour, treating its subject matter as if it's the most serious business in the world. There's one or two interesting moments and the cast is okay. The whole is not really worth sitting through for these few-and-far-between bright spots. Well, it is better than the “Flatliners” remake, I'll give it that much, but hopefully Miss Page's future forays into the horror genre are a lot better. [5/10]

Dinosaurs: Little Boy Boo

“Dinosaurs” is another TV show that I loved as a kid. While many of the episodes still make me laugh, not every element of this series has aged that well. Yes, the screeching, catchphrase-spewing Baby Sinclair is kind of annoying. “Little Boy Boo,” the series' proper Halloween episode (though not its sole spooky episode), is one of the episodes heavily focused on the show's loudest and most marketable character. How can a sitcom set in prehistoric times discuss the topic of Halloween? Ah, let me explain.

“Little Boy Boo” begins with Sinclair parents, Earl and Fran, leaving to watch their teenage daughter, Charlene, perform in the school play. Older brother Robbie opts to stay home and babysit Baby. When the youngest Sinclair pretends to choke on a cookie, Robbie decides to get a little revenge. He tells Baby a scary story about being bitten by a caveman and transforming into a were-man. After properly terrifying the infant with the tale, Robbie has to make it up to his little brother. He agrees to give the Baby candy. Since they don't have any, he goes door-to-door through the neighbor, asking the neighbors for something sweet. In case you didn't get the joke, the annoyed neighbor clarifies that this is October 31st. “Little Boy Boo” depicts the prehistoric origins of Halloween.

The high-pitched antics of Baby Sinclair can be a bit hard to swallow through adult eyes. (Or, rather, ears.) The episode ends with a music video starring the infant, which I highly recommend skipping. Despite featuring lots of the screaming baby, “Little Boy Boo” is still a pretty amusing episode. Robbie's scary story references “Thriller” and largely bases its plot off “The Wolfman.” The old gypsy woman and the pentagram on the palm are even maintained. Classic horror references like that are always fun. The episode gets a few laughs when Baby's words directly interact with Robbie's fictional events, such as when he goes back and rewrites events. The were-caveman angle is very silly, it must be said, but I still had some fun with this. [7/10]

Alexia (2013)

Social media being an ever-present aspect of our modern lives, it's not surprising that a few horror films have been inspired by the phenomena. “Alexia,” an Argentian short from 2013, is largely set on a website similar to but legally distinct from Facebook. Franco broke up with her girlfriend, Alexia, and she killed herself afterwards. It's been a year. The social media website reminds Franco that it's his dead ex's birthday, prompting him to look at the dedications on her wall and sulk. That's when he gets a private message from Melina, his new girlfriend. After accepting an invitation to hang, his computer starts to freak out. It seems Alexia's spirit is not happy to see him move on.

The idea behind “Alexia” is potent. Social media has made it difficult to escape the spectre of failed relationships, as even the most well-adjusted person is tempted to spy on their exes' pages from time to time. Furthermore, being reminded of people who have actually died by the cold and heartless website algorithms is a very real phenomenon. Either of these ideas would've been a strong foundation to build a horror film upon. Sadly, “Alexia” goes for the easiest option. Its scares are generated by spooky faces or hands leaping out at the protagonist. The scariest Alexia's ghost can do at first is glitch up Franco's screen. The conclusion is seriously lame, the scary attack coming at the exact moment you expect. This one seems fairly well liked and popular – it has over a million views on Youtube – but it left me cold. [5/10]

Halloween 2017: October 16

Flatliners (2017)

I'm of the philosophy that the films that should be remade are the ones with interesting ideas but weak executions. This should make “Flatliners” an ideal candidate for a retelling. Yet, in 2017, it's hard to work up enthusiasm for a reboot of a partially forgotten nineties movie. From the minute it was announced, we knew the kind of tame, PG-13 shenanigans we were getting. Even Ellen Page, absolutely my favorite actress working today, starring in the film didn't get my hopes up. It mostly made me wonder “Why is Ellen Page appearing in schlock like this?” So when the lame trailer dropped, I wasn't surprised. When the critics rushed to write their pithiest “falls flat/dead on arrival/shouldn't have been brought back from the dead” puns, I wasn't surprised. But, hey, it's been a while since I've seen Ellen on the big screen and I had a Regal gift card that I'd been sitting on for a while. Figured I might as well catch this thing during what will likely be its last week in theaters.

Despite some hubbub that 2017's “Flatliners” was actually a stealth sequel to the original, the film is in fact a remake. (That much touted Kiefer Sutherland cameo has him playing a totally different character.) This film follows Courtney Holmes, a young medical student obsessed with death, due to a tragedy in her youth. She lassos four friends into participating in her experiment: Tracking the brain's patterns while being clinically dead, using themselves as test subjects, only to be brought back. At first, the experience is powerfully positive, making the student smarter and vitalized. However, the group soon discovers that unnerving spectres – reminders of their greatest mistakes – have followed them back to the world of the living.

I went into 2017's “Flatliners” with abyssal expectations. Due to this, my initial reaction was positive. “This isn't so bad,” I thought. At first the new “Flatliners' seems to be a genuine improvement over the original. There's a more scientific edge to this version. The gothic cathedral is changed out for an abandoned hospital complex. A cat-scan machine is added to the procedure. Flatlining results in keener thinking and sexual euphoria, giving everyone more of a reason to do it. The characters' regrets, underwhelming in the original, have been made more serious. Courtney was driving the car during the wreck that killed her sister. Marlo ignored a patient's medical history, leading to a fatal reaction. Jamie manipulated an ex-girlfriend into getting an abortion, before abandoning her. Even Sophia's less tragic sin – spreading an academic rival's nudes around the school – is more devastating than anything in the original.

I also found the cast to be likable. And not just Ellen, though she's very good. Page makes the character's high points – sarcastically getting her friends to participate, her peppiness after flatlining – really charming while the darker moments are equally convincing. James Norton's Jamie, who is obviously inspired by Daniel Baldwin's character from the original, manages to be a cad but not an irredeemable sleazeball. He even becomes sympathetic by the end. Kiersey Clemons is cute and fun as Sophia. It's nice to see her break away from her controlling mother. Diego Luna and Nina Dobrev are probably the weaker links in the cast. Luna's serious moments are hard to take seriously while Dobrev is never entirely believable. But, generally speaking, the film's cast is not a problem at all.

Truthfully, “Flatliners” rolls along pretty decently until it has to become a horror movie. Director Niels Arden Oplev, who I guess is going to ride the success of “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” forever, uses CGI pretty decently in the early going. The film's vision of the afterlife are genuinely interesting. The image of something squirming under a blanket, eventually revealed to not be there, is effective. However, Oplev eventually leans on CGI too hard. The climax involves a big, swirling storm cloud of computer-generated dust, for one example. The scare tactics the film deploys are lame and worn out. We've got multiple jump scares, usually assisted by pasty-faced ghouls suddenly stepping into frame. Both creepy nursery rhymes and creepy kids put in appearance. Probably the dumbest scare in the movie involves bloody letters suddenly appearing on a morgue door. It's all loud, unimpressive, and warmed over.

Something this “Flatliners” does maintain is the original's sappy streak. There's actually a moral here about self-forgiveness that couldn't be more forced in and unearned. Something that's new is the gratuitous product placement. Nina Dobrev's Mini-Cooper has more hero shots than any of the actual cast members. There's a mild plot twist midway through that did catch me off-guard, though mostly for all the wrong reasons. So, despite some minor moves forward, 2017's “Flatliners' is as exactly mediocre as the original but in a slightly different way. I hope Ellen can find better material than this in the future, as she deserves way better. [5/10]

Magic (1978)

The ventriloquist dummy has a proud history in the horror genre. Like dolls and mannequins, they have the corpse-like visage of looking alive but not being alive. Yet the dummy has the extra layer of having an intimate connection with a human. Pretty much from the first cinematic depiction of ventriloquism – 1925's “The Great Gabbo,” as far as I can tell – people have assumed a disturbing relationship between the dummy and the performer. One of the most famous evil dummy movies is “Magic.” The film was well received and reasonably successful upon release but, over the years, it has become even more respected.

Corky Withers has trained for years to become a magician. Though his skills are impressive, his inability to remain cool on-stage keeps his career from coming off. His luck changes when he adds Fats, a foul-mouthed ventriloquist dummy, to his act. He's so successful that he's even offered a television special. Before that deal can go through, he has to undergo a mental exam. This scares Corky and he runs off to his childhood home in the Catskill Mountain. There, he reunites with Peggy Ann Snow, his high school crush. The two fall in love, despite Peggy being married. Fats, however, continues to occupy far too much of Corky's mind. The dummy – an extension of Corky's own madness – refuses to let Peg get in the way of their success.

Eleven years before becoming Hannibal Lector, Anthony Hopkins already had experienced playing a brilliant but insane character. Hopkins' performance is very intense. From the impressive first scene – where Corky describes a magic show as successful while the audience sees how unsuccessful it was – we learn about his angry streak. As the story progresses, Corky's neurosis and volatile side continues to manifest. As sweaty and unnerving as Corky can be, you also see how charming he is. His anger is balanced with a very relatable fear. He's also supported by one of the creepiest dummies in horror history. In a brightly-lit room, Fats is funny and non-threatening. In the dark, his wide eyes and unmoving face are spooky. Fats never comes alive anywhere but in Corky's mind but a first-time viewer sure doesn't know that. One scene, where Fats' lips quiver and his eyes go mad, is especially unnerving. Fats is somewhat tragic too, by the end, as his dying moans are deeply felt. “Magic” is a movie that keenly understands how the best monsters are equally scary and sympathetic. 

“Magic” was advertised with the tagline “A terrifying love story.” That might seem like a weird way to sell a psychological horror movie but the romance at the story's center is genuinely charming. Ann-Margret's Peggy is not happy with her life. She's trapped in a loveless marriage and has never left her childhood home town. Corky seems to intuitively understand her pain, as he's struggling with dissatisfaction too. The two quickly fall in bed but the warmth between Margret and Hopkins makes this believable. Corky's final gesture of love for Peg – a wooden heart he's whittled – gets me every time. His actions are sweet and selfless, rooted in a pure love. The film wouldn't work at all if the romance wasn't so believable. With it, “Magic” becomes a first rate film.

The film doesn't just exploit a creepy dummy for its horror content, though that goes a really long way. “Magic” is also a hugely suspenseful thriller. There are several stand-out sequences, that really push the tension as far as possible. When Corky's agent – played with warmth and bitter sarcasm by Burgess Meredith – forces the ventriloquist not to talk with his dummy for five minutes, the film makes sure the scene feels as long for the viewer as it does for Corky. This builds towards Corky bludgeoning his agent with the dummy, who refuses to stay dead in several inconvenient ways. Another impressive scene occurs when Peg's husband catches something on a fishing line. While he attempts to drag whatever it is up, Corky raises an oar, fearful of what might appear. As suspenseful as “Magic” is, it never looses sight of its tragic or romantic center.

As I said, “Magic” has developed a cult following over the years. I think the startling trailer has a lot to do with that. The trailer's sole focus is on Fats as he talks and eventually convulses in a disturbing manner. This was shown on daytime TV before parents of traumatized children requested it be removed. At least some of those kids grew up into horror fans. Beyond the really creepy dummy, “Magic” is a fantastically acted and wonderfully orchestrated feature, with some great performances and an effective score. I'm pretty happy that the original one-sheet is now hanging on my wall. [8/10]

Fear Itself: The Circle

For its final episode, “Fear Itself” didn't even bothered to get an arguable Master of Horror to direct. “The Circle” was directed by Eduardo Rodriguez, who had only made shorts up to that point. (He's since made the direct-to-video “Fright Night II,” doing little to help his case.) The series finale focuses on Brian, a hugely successful novelist. What he thought was going to be a quiet night with his wife, Lisa, is disturbed when Brian's agent and several other friends drop by. They're trying to get him over his writer's block. It's Halloween night, so neither are too disturbed when a pair of trick-or-treater's knock on the door. What they bring, a book called “The Circle,” is more unnerving. The monster from Brian's book, an amorphous darkness that infects people, encircles the cabin. Soon, Brian will have to write again if he hopes to survive the night.

I haven't seen any of Rodriguez' shorts, so I have no idea what was so effective about them that Mick Garris invited the guy to work on this show. I will say that “The Circle” is mildly successful as a horror film full of loud noises. There are many sequences of characters, infected by the darkness, leaping out and attacking people. Rodriguez has a decent enough grasp on tension that these moments are mildly effective. “Evil Dead” was a likely inspiration for this story – considering the cabin setting, the infectious evil, and an ominous book figuring into the plot – and Rodriguez captures that spirit a little bit. (The Halloween setting helps too.) The episode is also probably the goriest of “Fear Itself,” as people are impaled and tossed around repeatedly. Rodriguez does rely on CGI too much. The squirming mass of computer generated black tendrils do not impress.

Ultimately, “The Circle” is undermined by all its characters being awful people. Brian's agent is obnoxious, badgering him into writing a new book. His wife freaks out way too easily, spending most of the episode in a state of screaming panic. By the end, we learn that Brian has been cheating on his wife and his successful novel was writing by the other woman. The same woman that set the episode in motion by cursing the group. However, that woman is also annoying. Victoria Pratt plays the part in such a broad manner. Yes, like practically every episode of “Fear Itself,” this one also has a dumb twist ending. It's another mediocre hour of television from the underachieving series. [5/10]

In retrospect, “Fear Itself” was a little better than I remembered it being. Most of the episodes were deeply mediocre but only a few were truly awful. I even managed to like one or two. As a follow-up to “Masters of Horror,” it was a massive disappointment. Not just because the line-up of directors was generally underwhelming – though that was a big reason why – but because this series' goal seemed counter intuitive to that one's. “Masters of Horror” was all about allowing respected elder statesmen of the genre to do whatever they wanted. Moving the show to network television put a leash on that creativity. This is why, I think, “Fear Itself” was such a colossal failure. Even though I enjoyed a few episodes, I can't give this series too high a rating for that reason. [Fear Itself: 5/10]

The Early 70's Horror Trailer (1999)

I have no familiar with the work of director Damon Packard. He's done several features and a few shorts. His movie, “Reflections of Evil,” seems to have a small cult following. I watched his 1999 short film, “The Early 70's Horror Trailer,” because the title popped up on Letterboxd and it seemed like something I would enjoy. So what is “The Early 70's Horror Trailer” about? Exactly what it sounds like. It's a plotless series of images and titles, set to a groovy score, meant to recreate the look and feel of a vintage horror movie trailer. The non-existent movie the trailer is advertising seems to be about young women fleeing some sort of malevolent force, possibly a male killer.

As an act of re-creation, “The Early 70's Horror trailer” is pretty accurate. This does indeed feel like an old trailer. The musical score is excellent, especially the wild and shrieking violins that show up. The swirling, partially transparent titles Packard employ are period accurate. The rough zooms, color tinting, and shaky camera work recall a seventies giallo. A few of the images presented here are interesting. Such as a corpse-like man pointing ominously, a woman covered in blood laying in a bath tub, a witch-like face starring through a dark mirror, or a series of women running through a multi-colored area.

Otherwise, “The Early 70's Horror Trailer” gets tedious fairly quickly. Far too much of the short is composed of women running places. Packard seems a little over indulgent of his love of psychedelic colors. There are far too distorted or reflected shots. It's pretty cool for about two minutes. At seven minutes, it feels excessive. I would've preferred if Packard used his obvious attention to detail and talent for odd images to tell an actual narrative story. Unless this was some sort of meta experiment, about deconstructing a film into its bare parts and re-cutting that as a trailer... In which case, mission accomplished, I guess? [5/10]

NO ENCORES: Whip It (2009)

1. Whip It (2009)
Director: Drew Barrymore

The year was 2009 and I had a huge movie star crush on Ellen Page. No, the rumors that she was gay – and the eventual confirmation of those rumors – did not dissuade me. I was going through kind of a weird time myself, having a miserable experience in college. I had few friends and my girlfriend had just dumped me. When I saw “Whip It,” at a weekday evening show during its first week of release, I was the only person in the theater. In the lobby, the theater was giving away various freebies, including smaller versions of the film’s poster. That poster hung in my dorm room for a long time, more so because of my fascination with Miss Page and less because of the movie’s quality. Which isn’t to say “Whip It” is bad. It’s actually quite good. It’s also, as of this writing, the only directorial credit of actress Drew Barrymore.

Bliss Cavender is a seventeen year old living in the small town of Bodine, Texas. Despite her obvious disinterest, Bliss’ mom forces her to participate in beauty pageants. Bliss has few friends, aside from her co-workers at her waitress job. On a whim, she travels to a roller derby match in near-by Austin. Bliss is immediately smitten with the sport and soon tries out. After making the team, the Hurl Scouts, Bliss becomes the rookie of the year. All the while, she keeps her enthusiasm for the game a secret from her parents, who are no wiser. Eventually, that secret – and the boyfriend she gains at the same time – are going to have to come out.

Plot wise, there’s very little that’s special about “Whip It.” The film is a hybrid of the inspirational sports story and coming-of-age drama. The screenplay does not defy the clichés of either genre. There’s the underdog team, which rises to the championship with the help of the plucky new recruit. There’s the bitter, mean-spirited rivals and the eccentric teammates. There’s also the protagonist struggling against her parents, searching for herself, falling in love, making mistakes, and eventually realizing mom and dad aren’t so bad. Despite sticking to a routine outline, “Whip It” is still a very entertaining film.

That’s mostly because the movie maintains a freewheeling sense of fun throughout its entire run time. “Whip It” is not entirely glib but something fun or charming is usually happening on-screen. The dialogue is fast-paced and funny. When trying to get a drunk friend to throw up, Ellen tells her to imagine her parents having sex. Scenes of the characters just hanging out, chatting and joking around, are enormously amusing. The characters are extremely memorable. Even the smaller parts are filled out with individualizing quarks and gestures. Though nearly two hours long, “Whip It” moves at a steady pace, staying light-hearted and fun.

The phenomenally talented cast is another reason why “Whip It” is so charming. Ellen Page does not play typical teen heroines and Bliss Cavender is no different. The character is introduced dying her hair neon blue before a pageant, much to her mother’s consternation. Bliss’ style is described as “alternative,” which isn’t wrong. She wears thick glasses, ironic metal shirts, loves punk rock, and has an off-beat sense of humor. In comedies, Page has the ability to harness a natural awkward energy to generate lots of laughs. It would’ve been easy to play Bliss as a typical indie comedy protagonist, all quirks and no soul. Page, however, has an incredible humanity, putting so much thought into every move and decision. Ellen’s girl-next-door charm also goes a long way towards making Bliss seem like a real person.

In coming-of-age stories, it’s not uncommon for parents to be portrayed as totally clueless, even hateful, before finally coming around to their child’s way of thinking by the end. “Whip It” looks like its going in this direction. Marcia Gay Harden’s Brooke seemingly has little interest in understanding her daughter. A thoughtful parent probably would’ve realized that her daughter had no interest in beauty pageants long before Brooke did. Yet “Whip It” resists making Mom a bad guy. When Bliss reconciles with mom, it’s earned, the mother being portrayed as right about some things, wrong about others. It’s also nice that Harden isn’t immediately won over by her daughter’s sports performance. Even at the end, she’s a bit uncertain. I also really like Daniel Stern as the slightly goofy, sports-obsessed dad. Mom and dad clearly still have a passionate, physical relationship, which is a nice touch when so many movies portray parents as practically asexual.

Bliss’ best friend is Pash, played by Alia Shawkat. Shawkat and Page are friends in real life and that chemistry obviously carries over to their characters. The two often giggle like the mischievous teen girls they are. By the same accord, this isn’t played in a reductive manner. Instead, the two seem to be amusing themselves with genuine in-jokes. Much like Page, Shawkat has a unique screen presence of her own. Just the way she scowls or crinkles her forehead can produce a laugh. I also like Carlo Alban as Birdman, Ellen and Alia’s coworker and friend, who harbors a crush on Shawkat. When he finds out the romantic interest isn’t quite unrequited, his response is quite amusing.

Of course, Bliss’ kinship with her roller derby team is maybe the most important relationship in the film. Drew Barrymore assembles an excellent gathering of actors for this ensemble. Among them is herself. Barrymore plays Smashley Simpson, the primary muscle of the team, who has no problem smashing opposing players in the face. For that matter, it seems to be her primary strategy. This high-energy, rough-and-tumble part is extremely well suited to Barrymore’s talents. While Zoe Bell and Eve’s parts are fairly undefined, both actresses bring their considerable talents to the roles, making small roles memorable. As team couch Razor, Andrew Wilson amusingly vacillates between frustrated, with his team’s seeming incompetence, and pride, over their actual abilities. Kristen Wigg plays Maggie, the player who bonds most closely with Bliss. Wigg is parental, providing life advice to Page, but still funny, maintaining a personable edge even during the film’s slowest moments.

Befitting the sports setting, the Hurl Scouts are naturally opposed by a rival roller derby team. The Holy Rollers are led by Iron Maven, played by Juliette Lewis. Most of the film characterizes Maven as a bitter, typical sports movie bad guy. She tosses Bliss into a hot tub at an after-party and starts a food fight in a coffee shop. Naturally, her behavior in the rink is brutal, slamming and elbowing the other players. Yet “Whip It” still takes the time to add a little more depth to Lewis’ character. During a one-on-one with Bliss, Maven reveals that she spent most of her life aimless, not developing a passion for roller derby until recently. In a sports cliché at least as old as “Rocky,” the heroes go the distance without winning the championship. Displaying its continued commitment to humanity, Maven and Bliss share a grounding moment after the rival team wins.

Despite being a first time director, Barrymore has no problem capturing a fast-paced sense of action throughout the derby sequences in “Whip It.” The rules of roller derby are clearly displayed and understood, without bogging the film down in too much exposition. The audience grasps how the game works after the first sequence. The derby games are fun to watch, the camera keeping up with the speedy movements of the players. The blows against the guardrail or with fists hit with the appropriate level of force. It’s surprising that roller derby hasn’t made it into more films. The movement of the sport, the weaving in and out of crowds of players, is inherently cinematic. “Whip It” captures this well.

If there’s anything about the film that doesn’t immediately charm me, it’s the required love story. Bliss quite literally bumps into her love interest, rock singer Oliver. Oliver is played by Landon Pigg, a ridiculously named real singer of some note. From the moment we meet Oliver, we know he’s going to break Bliss’ heart somehow. Pigg’s not bad in the part and he shares some decent chemistry with Page. The scenes devoting to the two’s relationship, which include loosing keys in a corn field or playing pinball, are amiable. The inevitable love scene between the two, meanwhile, is rather overwrought. The two teens mingle underwater in a pool, which seems like an awfully inconvenient way to loose your virginity. Yes, Oliver does screw around on Bliss, confirming the audience’s natural instinct not to like him.

That heartbreak leads to the most routine part of “Whip It.” It’s the standard end of the second act shenanigans. Mom and Dad find out that Bliss has been deceiving them, forcing a schism between the characters. The Hurl Scouts discover Bliss is only 17, making her technically too young to play. Pash gets pissed at Bliss, forcing a separation between the close friends. The reveal that Oliver is a cheating piece of shit is the last blow for Bliss, which makes her realize she needs to get her life back together. “Whip It” is too laid back to ever lurched towards contrived melodrama. But it comes dangerously close during these scenes. The film defuses these tensions in a smart way. Bliss refuses to play Oliver’s shitty games. Pash, Dad, and the Scouts happily accept her back.

“Whip It” also has an awesome soundtrack, featuring some driving rock music from Peaches, MGMT, the Breeders, and the Ravonettes. The film’s effervescent charm was recognized by many critics, who admitted to liking it in spirit of the predictable screenplay. That, however, didn’t translate to box office and the film just barely broke even worldwide. Maybe that’s why Barrymore has yet to direct another film. Or maybe it’s an example of an actor directing a film and finding it isn’t for them, a pattern we’ll see in future No Encores reviews. “Whip It” isn’t a classic but the work of Page and the rest of the cast, along with a healthy amount of heart, makes the film highly agreeable nevertheless. Now I need to see if I still have that poster somewhere… [7/10]

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-]