X-Men: Apocalypse

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Bryan Singer/Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Fassbender, James McAvoy, Oscar Isaac, Rose Byrne, Olivia Munn, Tye Sheridan, Nicholas Hoult, Evan Peters, Sophie Turner, Kodi-Smit McPhee and Ally Sheedy

Professor X's gang is back for another CGI carnival; X-Men: Apocalypse; director Bryan Singer's latest franchise installment. The cast for this franchise seems to be growing at an exponential rate. This time we have the ferociously talented Oscar Isaac joining the magnificently-talented Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy for a movie that is fairly entertaining but hardly distinguished. The film's propulsion operates on casting and acting power rather than solid storytelling and a riveting plot. For me, any movie starring Jennifer Lawrence, Fassbender, McAvoy and Isaac is reason enough to pay the admission price. The four actors are solid anchors for a comic book movie that resembles not only the series predecessors but The Avengers. I'm starting to confuse the respective franchises.

In the latest story, we see ancient Egypt, or an idealized, comic book version thereof. Under an enormous pyramid, a ritual is in process which will transfer the soul and power from a god-like being known as En Sabah Nur to another, thus ensuring life everlasting. But saboteurs ensure the transference fails, which destroys the pyramid; leaving Nur buried under rubble; dormant for centuries thereafter.

In present day Egypt, CIA operative Moira Mactaggert (Rose Byrne) trails a group of men who unearth an underground passage to En Sabah Nur's burial site. Mactaggert watches in dismay as the all-powerful entity is resurrected.

In another part of the world, we see Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), otherwise known as Magneto, working anonymously in a Polish foundry; his identity concealed from his co-workers. In hiding from the world, Magneto has managed to start a family and maintain a low profile. But when he uses his powers to save a fellow co-worker, the authorities become aware of his true identity. Not long after, Lehnsherr, his wife and child are confronted in the woods by a posse of law enforcement officers with non-metallic bows and arrows. One projectile is accidentally discharged, killing Magneto's daughter and wife. Though powerless to manipulate any weapon lacking metallic properties, a chain with a medallion is used to dispatch all the officers in an efficient, lethal manner.

Meanwhile, in Westchester County, NY; Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) seeks out Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) to alert him to Magneto's whereabouts. Though a mutant, Mystique's reluctance to connected to the organization or to even be referred to as her crime-fighting appellation is acute, which contrasts sharply with Xavier's commitment to helping and guiding all mutants.

While Mystique and Xavier concern themselves with Magneto, Nur wanders Egyptian streets, observing all that has become of the world he once knew. Feeling nothing but contempt for what he sees, he initiates an agenda to cleanse the world. He enlists others with mutant powers: Storm (Ororo Munroe); a waif who sees Nur use his powers to dispatch a group of men who accost him on the city streets; Angel (Ben Hardy); another mutant whose powerful wings serve as offensive and defensive weapons and Psylocke (Olivia Munn), whose weapons of choice are dual lethal swords. Utilizing his god-like powers, Nur augments his follower's abilities; rendering them more dangerous. But the most dangerous recruit is Magneto himself, who sees Nur's plan for global destruction a goal worthy of his own.

Xavier and the X-Men become aware of Nur when he and his newly formed group infiltrate their headquarters for the express purpose of kidnapping Professor X, whose ability to detect and communicate with mutants worldwide becomes highly coveted. When Nur and his team succeed in kidnapping Xaver, Mystique becomes the reluctant leader of a rescue team which consists of Quicksilver (Evan Peters), Beast/Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult; sporting cool-looking blue hair and beard), Jane Grey (Sophie Turner), Cyclops (Tye Sheridan), and Nightcrawler (Kodi-Smit McPhee), whose ability to transport himself instantaneously through space becomes highly useful. But their efforts go awry when a mutant-hating Colonel named Stryker captures the team and imprisons them in a cell in a secret facility. This subplot is kind of fun. The group discovers another famous mutant being held in the facility. Nightcrawler and Jane Grey manage to help the group escape, which leads them on a collision course with Nur and his followers, who have already begun the process of transferring Xavier's mighty powers of mind to the Egyptian God. But the group must also stop Magneto, whose augmented powers have been harnessed to destroy cities and bridges worldwide.
The latter half of the film is the inevitable battle between the X-Men and Nur's super-mutant team.

Director Bryan Singer is an old hat with Marvel movies, having directed several through his career. He coaxes a reasonably interesting story from his co-written script and gives the X-Men a formidable foe to test their powers against. Nur is an interesting villain with unbelievable power but somehow he becomes a bit bumbling during the climactic fight. What looked like an unbeatable villain early on proves to be less dangerous later in the film. What little suspense the story held was established early on but it spilled away in the second half.

It's tough blogging about superhero films because the normal critical foci; direction, cinematography, acting, etc., play second fiddle to the almighty visuals. With superhero flicks, it's CGI-uber-alles.

But in spite of the towering visual effects, some humanity manages to sprout. It seems Professor X and Mystique will forever try to convince Magneto that a spark of goodness still exists in him. The indication is that they may have succeeded, which is too bad, considering the X-Men movies are always more fun when Magneto is disgruntled and on a rampage. The series has certainly undergone a youthful makeover; younger actors have now assumed the roles of principal characters.

I think I've come to expect a McDonald's experience with the Marvel movies. One knows a Big Mac's taste will never vary, nor will anything else on a Golden Arches menu. In spite of that fact, we still return; satisfied that some things remain the same, year in, year out. To me, the analogy seems very apt. I get what I expect with superhero movies, so I'm never dissatisfied. But there is hope. Deadpool and Antman offer the genre more humorous possibilities.

Please forgive my afore-expressed editorial but I have little more to say about X-Men: Apocalypse other than it wasn't dull. If you'd rather not cough up a dozen dollars to reach the same conclusion, then might I suggest you see...uh...Captain America: Civil War?

Macbeth

Director: Justin Kurzel/Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine and David Thewlis

Australian director Justin Kurzel, who helmed the visceral and deeply disturbing The Snowtown Murders, returns with his much-anticipated film adaptation of Macbeth. Film versions of Shakespeare's play stretch to infinity and it is likely more will come, so what distinguishes Kurzel's from other interpretations? For one, Kurzel's version features the magnificently intense Michael Fassbender in the lead role. Stunning visuals are yet another attribute. It is certainly something to look at but how do the drama and more importantly; the dialogue, fare?

One problem I've had with Shakespearean film-adaptations in the past is mumbled or inaudible dialogue. It's a problem I have with Kurzel's film too. Aside from the play's characters, who stand as some of the most famous in theater; Shakespeare's words, for me, are what really make him master of all playwrights. Whenever I see any production of Shakespeare, I want to hear the dialogue clearly expressed. In Kurzel's film, much of the dialogue, including soliloquies, is robbed of its power and poetry.
Any character or play should be open to creative interpretation and performed accordingly; an artistic edict both Michael Fassbender (Macbeth) and Marion Cotillard (Lady Macbeth) embrace fully. But famous, key scenes suffer from either said unintelligible muttering or weakly-conveyed meaning. The famous Is this a dagger I see? soliloquy is expertly expressed but one has to strain to hear the words, whose clarity waxes and wanes. The monologue is key to understanding Macbeth's manic ambition but its impact is severely diminished if one has to strain to hear the words. It wouldn't have hurt to provide subtitles.

In another famous scene, Lady Macbeth's Out damned spot fails to capture the madness and guilt gripping her mind. The words are spoken in a curiously reserved manner. The choice to make the dialogue sound more natural rather than stagy is a nice touch but in accomplishing that goal much of Shakespeare's dialogue is unheard, leaving those familiar with the play to fill in what fails to find our ears.

Aside from Fassbender's charismatic fury, another of the film's strong attributes are the film locations. The stark beauty of the British and Scottish landscapes; majestic mountains and vast, grassy plains, make excellent, dramatic settings.

The visual aesthetics: the bleak, gray gloom and the eerie fog from which the witches emerge are stylized touches that nicely serve the story's moody forebodings.

One may notice the costumes in the film for their naturalistic, spare look. We never see regal finery or any garments adorned with vivid colors. Even Macbeth's crown is a drab headdress.

Though I found Michael Fassbender to be an awe-inspiring Macbeth, I thought Marion Cotillard to be a disappointingly mild Lady Macbeth. I think Cotillard is an excellent actress and is one of my contemporary favorites but I never got the sense she was the cunning and conniving force behind her husband's rise to power. Her Lady Macbeth seems passive and though she isn't meek, she comes across as a wife who has little influence on her husband's diabolical designs for the crown. Other characters, such as Paddy Considine's excellent Banquo and David Thewlis' Duncan, are played with distinction.

It is apparent Kurzel's aim was naturalism; an aesthetic I admire. He wanted us to feel the blood and dirt of the tragedy rather than showing us gaudily-costumed characters strutting about, chewing Shakespeare's words to death. His approach succeeds handsomely but the film fails miserably where it should be strong. Shakespeare's words are everything. Without the dialogue's poetic brilliance, we would merely have an interesting story about a man with Machiavellian ambitions. Kurzel understands poetry in all its visual expressions but he hamstrings the words and that, my few and dear readers, is what keeps the film from achieving a level of greatness it nevertheless strives for.

Steve Jobs

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Danny Boyle/Starring: Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Jeff Daniels, Seth Rogen, Michael Stuhlbarg and Katherine Waterston

Director Danny Boyle's new film; Steve Jobs, has sustained criticism in the media for its inaccuracies and its distorted portrait of its subject. Though most biopics can be said to take liberties with their subjects, apparently Boyle's film has gone further; almost re-imagining the man; thus marginalizing his essence. But after having seen documentary film-maker Alex Gibney's recent documentary on Steve Jobs; Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine, one might conclude otherwise. If Boyle's film has taken a more hyperbolic course, it has also held firm to basic facts about his life and relationships; specifically his fall-outs with colleagues and his troubled history with his daughter Lisa; who Jobs initially failed to acknowledge as his own.

But if we can accept Boyle's film as an imaginative biopic, then we can settle into what is an extraordinary film. When collaborators as ferociously talented as Danny Boyle, Michael Fassbender and dialogue master Aaron Sorkin join forces, you get something as electrifying as Steve Jobs; a lacerating and unforgiving look at a man whose obsessive push to innovate earned him the enmity of colleagues but the love of an industry and consumers.

Boyle's film isn't structured as a cradle to grave biopic but instead focuses on three salient moments in Jobs' life: the unveiling of the Macintosh home computer, the presentation of his Next Computer after his dismissal from Apple; and finally the announcement of the iMac. Each chapter in the narrative takes place in auditoriums, where industry personnel, the media and techies swarm like rock concert attendees to see and hear their guru present his latest products. But the stages are almost beside the point; dramatically speaking. The real stories in the film take place backstage, where Jobs' bickering with his staff mingles with intense exchanges with his ex-girlfriend Chrisann Brennan (Katherine Waterston) over his duties to his daughter, for whom he refuses to acknowledge his paternity. Another figure who makes intermittent appearances in said scenes is John Sculley (Jeff Daniels); former CEO of Apple and one-time colleague of Jobs, who looms large in the story. And of course Jobs' tempestuous relationship with Apple co-creator Steve Wozniak (Seth Rogen) figures prominently.

As backstage dramas unfold, I felt the story reaching for Shakespearean heights, with Jobs as a kind of king driven to paranoia and megalomania. We also see how Jobs charisma attracts followers, while his intolerance for anything he deems obstructive repels those around him. And like a Shakespearean play, the three key moments serve as acts to dramatize the king's rise and fall; success before a tragic end.

In the first scene, we see some of Jobs' obsessive pursuit of success as Andy Hertzfeld (Michael Stuhlberg); one of Apple's key designers, informs his boss that the Macintosh won't be able to greet the audience as expected. Jobs reacts to the news with angry impatience while also issuing Hertzfeld threats and a command to correct the problem in a mere twenty-minutes. If the real Jobs' anger was anything like Fassbender's version, it must have been quite fearsome and intimidating. While Hertzfeld anxiously attempts to address Jobs' angry directive, another drama simmers elsewhere. Jobs finds Chrisann in his dressing room; daughter in tow. Chrisann wastes little time in asking how Jobs can leave his girlfriend and daughter at the mercy of welfare when his Apple stock is worth $400 million. Jobs forcefully rejects her claims about being Lisa's father while Chrisann quotes an article from one of his recent interviews where he coldly stated that twenty-eight percent of the men in America could be Lisa's father. The opening Macintosh sequence is effective in capturing the pressing issues in Jobs' professional and private life. In spite of his protestations, Jobs shows interest in his daughter when Lisa begins to tinker with a Macintosh prototype resting on a table. He guides her as she draws him a picture using the draw and paint feature then shows her how to save it.

We also see Jobs and Steve Wozniak lock horns over an issue involving giving credit to the Apple 2 team for their work; a gesture Jobs feels unnecessary and Wozniak an imperative. Though Wozniak cites the Apple 2 as a top-earner in Apple's product line, Jobs sees it as something old and of the past. Wozniak's tireless efforts to have the Apple 2 team recognized becomes a bone of contention that runs through the narrative.

In time we meet John Sculley, the former CEO of Pepsi. who Jobs lures to Apple. The appropriation of Sculley becomes tragically ironic as Jobs is later fired by the same man he wooed to be its CEO. The story gives us the backstory on how the two men met, which leads to the pivotal meeting in which the board--and Sculley--vote to oust Jobs from Apple.

So the film's principal figures are established early, while the rest of the film shows us how the various relationships evolve. We also see, in time, how Jobs comes to accept his role as father in Lisa's life and how he bounces back from his fall to regain control of Apple.

After so many narrative and documentaries on Jobs' life, details and facts have become common knowledge. There is little point in offering the audience a comprehensive account of his life. Instead, Boyle and Sorkin pinpoint major events in his life that define his visionary brilliance, but also his capacity to be cruel, callous and oblivious to others feelings and needs. This is partly accomplished by Fassbender's intensity and his ability to interpret Sorkin's intoxicating dialogue. Complimenting Fassbender is Kate Winslet, who is no less amazing as Joanna Hoffman; Jobs' head of marketing. Watching Hoffman follow Jobs around, we see her not only as a colleague but an indispensable ally who often acts as his conscience and as a kind of consigliere. Like Jobs, Hoffman is a salad of contradictions. She is often dismayed by Jobs behavior and lack of regard for others but is nevertheless steadfast in her loyalty.

The film also captures Jobs' populist bent. It makes sense that a man who envisioned computers being in the hands of the average Joe would hire a former CEO of Pepsi; a product consumed by the masses. Jobs' appropriation of Bob Dylan's image is consistent with his every-man perspective. As Dylan's folk music addressed the common man's condition, Jobs always considers how the average person will use his machines.

As aforementioned, auditoriums always serve as settings, which means many tracking shots through corridors and hallways, as well as backrooms. Very little of the film actually takes place onstage, which is very interesting.

Boyle leaves any assessment of Jobs and his legacy for audience value judgements. Was Jobs a genius or just a canny trendsetter? Was he a Napoleonic monster or just ferociously driven, or both? Does he deserve credit for Apple's success or did he just exploit its talent for personal aggrandizement? At one moment in the film, Jobs likens what he does to a conductor leading an orchestra. Though the conductor plays no instrument, he says, he plays the orchestra. Later, when Wozniak confronts Jobs in an auditorium, with many onlookers, he asks him what his particular contribution to the company is if he doesn't design or build the actual computers. Jobs earlier comment about playing the orchestra comes to the fore. That might also serve as the film's perspective on Jobs' essential contribution to Apple.

Steve Jobs is a hypnotic film; one that leaves you in wonder and flabbergasted at how good it is. It is hyper-smart and never dull for a moment. It is cerebral but bloody in a figurative sense. I can't speak for its accuracy but its excellence might lead one to overlook its lapses in biographical integrity.

After seeing several films on Steve Jobs the past few years, I hope Boyle's film will signal the beginning of a moratorium on the subject. Maybe it will even be considered the definitive film; discouraging future versions. Let's hope; I'd hate to see one more film on the Apple co-creator; one starring Dwayne Johnson.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

**Some Spoilers, but not many**

Director: Bryan Singer/Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jennifer Lawrence, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Ellen Page and Peter Dinklage

Days of Future Past...hmmm, isn't that the title of a Moody Blues album? Uh, never mind. The latest X-men iteration is upon us; this time combining the "old" and "new" casts though what those designations mean character-wise is subject to the audience's point-of-view.

I was able to breathe a sigh of relief upon exiting the theater; Marvel Entertainment finally came through with a terrific super-hero film, which builds upon the equally terrific X-Men: First Class. Though the new cast; James McAvoy, Michael Fassbinder, Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult occupy most of screentime in X-Men: Days of Future Past, the old cast returns, sharing the latest adventure. Wolverine acts as sort of a liason between the old and new and by now Hugh Jackman can play this role in a coma. But he hasn't taken his character for granted; offering a marvelous performance and his signature rippling torso, bursting with vascularity.

I won't offer a complete synopsis because I would rather spend more time mentioning what I liked about the film, which was nearly everything.

Mankind is threatened and mostly conquered by what are called Sentinels; robots with mutant DNA, specifically Raven/Mystique's (Jennifer Lawrence). How did such a thing happen? Back in the early 70s', a mutant-hating scientist named Dr. Bolivar Trask (an excellent Peter Dinklage) designs robots to combat what he believes is a mutant menace. Raven/Mystique, wise to Trasks's research and agenda, tracks him down and kills him but in doing so, is captured. Her DNA, bone marrow, and other bodily contents are utilized in his robot-design, which make them nearly invincible. The Sentinels can not only identify mutants, but can effectively neutralize them with near impunity.

The film begins with scenes of urban darkness; the aftermath of Sentinel domination. Only a small unit of mutants hold out in remote China. Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellan) both hatch a plan that will send Wolverine's consciousness back in time via Kitty Pride's (Ellen Page) time-bending powers. His mission is to find both the younger versions of the Professor and Magneto and convince them that Raven's assassination attempt on Trask must be stopped, thereby denying him access to mutant DNA. Plenty of obstacles present themselves, and an effective ticking clock is employed to ratchet up the tension. In the the future, the Sentinels have discovered the mutant hide-out and threaten both the future and past Wolverine's mission. Very exciting stuff.

The screenplay by Simon Kinberg and story by Jane Goldman are inventive, intricate, intense, rich in character development and spare no opportunities for humor.

For once, CGI doesn't play an exclusive role in the visuals but are used sparingly and effectively; serving the story rather than smothering it. The actors are allowed to act, to explore their characters, rather than just react to a green-screen.

The acting, as one would expect, is top-notch, which is what one would expect from such an exceptional cast. McAvoy and Fassbender scintillate as Professor X and Magneto, particularly in an airplane scene where X accuses Magneto of ruining his life while Magneto accuses X of abandoning the mutants. Fassbender allows his character to be angry without spilling all his rage; he holds some in reserve behind his taut jaw and saber-gaze. McAvoy's X is a blend of wavering confidence and fear of his own powers, which gives his hero more depth. Jennifer Lawrence is an actress that seems to fail at nothing. She gives Raven/Mystique an edgy determination and it is always thrilling to see her character onscreen. But it is the small role of Evan Peters' Quicksilver that presents the film its memorable, mutant jester. Quicksilver seems more trickster than hero and the scene where he directs the bullets and aggression of a security force away from the other mutants is deliriously entertaining and funny. That it all plays out to Jim Croce's Time in a Bottle makes it all the more inspired.

By now Bryan Singer has earned his super-hero movie bona-fides but he doesn't Tweet his effort in. He demonstrates the new X-Men franchise is one Marvel series that deserves some longevity. It is inspired from opening to closing credits and it is one of the very few super-hero movies I can honestly say I would pay to see again. I hope Hollywood is taking note; (though it doesn't really care if their product has charm; the bottom-line is king) X-Men: Days of Future Past provides instruction on superhero-movie-making how-to. We'll see if they can recreate the magic in the next installment, which was hinted at the end of the closing credits. We'll see, indeed.