Movie Review Repost - Furious 7 (2015)

In my review of Independence Day 2, I mentioned how the original Independence Day was a big, dumb pile of fun. So I thought now might be a good time to show you a review I did for one of those types of movies, Furious 7. Since April 2015 my feelings on this movie haven't changed; it's a prime example of mindless entertainment.

   It's once again time to return to that inexplicably long-running film series that keeps changing its title with each passing outing. I'd just like to point out that before Furious 7, the only Fn'F films I had previously seen were 2 Fast 2 Furious and The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, the latter of which you may remember (Who am I kidding? No, you don't) being on my list of Top 10 Worst Movies I've Ever Seen... my expectations were not high.

   But this one was alright. Furious 7 follows Dominic Toretto and his team as they take on a vengeful assassin working for a terrorist network. The film even dares to tie itself into the plot of Tokyo Drift, apparently becoming the first movie to take place after that one. Anyways, Furious 7 offers lots of wild, over-the-top action with impressive stunt work and lots of explosions. And to cap it all off, we're given a touching tribute to the late Paul Walker at the end.

   The film boasts an ensemble cast – Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Kurt Russel, Jason Statham, Dwayne Johnson, Ludacris, Tyrese Gibson – and they each do a fine job, even if their comedic banter doesn't always achieve the laughs they're going for. But the one-liners have just the right amount of cheesiness, and Jason Statham is an amazing villain. Paul Walker's passing, which no doubt contributed to this film becoming the fifth-highest grossing movie of all time, necessitated some obvious script rewrites. You can tell that his character was originally meant to have a bigger role.

   Probably this film's biggest problem is its editing. Besides having random fast-forwards and pointless jump cuts (seriously, was this shot in 2002?) Furious 7's fight scenes also suffer from that familiar choppy editing that nearly renders them unwatchable; this probably made it easier to pass off Walker's doubles. The driving scenes look OK though. The cinematography was a little high-strung as well; there's a lot of tracking and rotating camera shots for scenes that only have people talking. It's not necessary.

   Obviously Furious 7 is an over-the-top action flick, but there's just a few things that one's suspension of disbelief can't hold up. Like, why did agent Hobbs have his weapons and gear with him in his hospital room? How was Dominic able to lift up a suped-up million dollar car fitted with armour plating? And how do none of the drivers ever get hurt? Aside from walking away from nightmarish crashes without a scratch, I think every main character jumps out of a speeding car at least once. And not a single bone was broken. Needless to say, don't try this at home.

   I have to admit I was fully prepared to hate this movie, but it's actually not that bad. It's not your thinking man's action movie, but it's entertaining enough. It's the kind of movie Michael Bay wishes he could make; and since it isn't as boring it presents a decent alternative to the Transformers movies.

Rating: three stars out of five.

Movie Review - Independence Day: Resurgence

   I am a big fan of the original Independence Day from 1996. I saw it as a kid and I loved it. Growing up, I realized how silly and dumb it was, but I loved it just the same. It was a film that never really needed a sequel, but I guess 20 years is a fair time to wait for the nostalgia wave to wash something ashore. Case in point, Independence Day: Resurgence. Does it equal the silly funfest of its predecessor? Let's find out.

   Twenty years after the events of the first movie, humanity has risen from the ashes stronger than ever. I've got to hand it to the filmmakers here, the settings look really imaginative and creative: very different from the Earth we saw in the 1996 film. Alien technology has been used to revolutionize everyday life and world peace is now a reality – even though armed militias and warlords still exist, uh-doy! – probably because everyone in this world seems to know/be related to eachother. And if you didn't get all of this set up right away then don't worry; Resurgence clumsily explains its backstory with clunky exposition. In the first 45 minutes there are tons of lines that go like “I was the youngest valedictorian in the academy's history”, “you gave up flying to take care of me”, and “you've been in a coma for 7300 days now”. In the words of Rush, “Show me, don't tell me.”

   I'm supposed to be talking about the plot, aren't I? Anyways, aliens show up and wreck a bunch of major cities, and what's left of the US government retreats to Area 51 to lead humanity's last stand. It's a plot that's extremely similar to the first film, but with even less emotional weight. What I mean is that with the first Independence Day, the movie took its time to really build things up, to maximize the epicness and awesomeness of what was happening. Resurgence, on the other hand, seems more concerned with getting to the point and throwing some action our way. This is especially evident when characters die. For example, there's a scene in which one character sacrifices himself during a battle (in the same way that Randy Quaid did in the original), but there's hardly any emotional weight to it. What's more, his death is never mentioned again so you're pretty much guaranteed to forget about it after a few minutes. But these shortcomings are (arguably) forgivable thanks to the amazing cliffhanger ending. Don't worry, the film's story is resolved, but the cliffhanger ending outlines what'll happen in the sequel. And it does it in the most goofy, over-the-top, badass way possible. For the Independence Day series, it's perfect! Seriously, if you can find a clip of the last minute of this movie, then go watch it. That part alone is worth the price of admission.

   Now for the characters. Most of the surviving ones from the first movie are back – Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, Judd Hirsch, Brent Spiner, and Jasmine Dubrow – and they're all fun to watch. Too bad Will Smith's character died offscreen between films. Lame. The movie also tries introducing some new characters, but they're mostly colourless and have no charisma which only adds to the “why should I care?” problem. Having said that, General William Fitchner and Deobia Oparei as the badass Congolese warlord are alright.

   As was the case with the first film, this one is written and directed by Roland Emmerich, who is a lousy writer, but a capable director who makes heavy use of impressive special effects (even if it is sometimes hard to tell the good guys' and bad guys' aircraft apart). Perhaps more than the first film, Resurgence has a good amount of humour, which includes nice little references to the original.

   However, there were a few things that didn't quite make sense to me. Like, did the governments of Earth rebuild the cities that were destroyed in 1996 exactly the way they were before? It looks like it, though it's a shame that they got destroyed all over again! Also, the cities' destruction seemed a little inconsistent. For example, how did the Burj Khalifa end up getting flung all the way over to London in one piece? And if there was a hole being drilled through the ocean floor hundreds of kilometres deep, then wouldn't there be water rushing into it?

   As I've said before, the first Independence Day film is a load of mindless fun. If I had to rate it today, I'd probably give it a 3 or something. Resurgence wants to be like its predecessor (maybe a little too much), but it isn't as memorable, epic, or emotionally engrossing. There are moments of fun to be had, but the real concern here is: will you care?

Grade: two stars out of five.

Top 10 Biggest Military Winners of Modern History

So remember way back in December of last year when I published the “Top 10 Biggest Military Losers of Modern History” list? Well, I figured it'd be fun to write a companion list to that spotlighting the most successful wartime nations. My feelings about war only making losers out of societies (i.e. there are no winners) still stands, so for this list I'm ranking it based less on lives lost/territory won and more on the nation's consistency of strategic/tactical victory. Maybe that's why I've found this list so much harder to compose than the top 10 losers list. As with last time, only conflicts taking place after 1800 will be counted. And as always, this list is simply my take on things: disagree, if you wish.

Honourable Mentions: Vietnam, South Korea, and Russia/USSR even though they were on the top 10 losers list. What can I say? Russians: they win big, they lose big.

10 – Cuba

After twice failing to expel their Spanish overlords (in 1878 and 1880) the Cuban people finally achieved independence in 1898 with American help. After half a century of several uprisings and US interventions, Cuba's government – then headed by the corrupt Bautista regime – came under the control of Fidel Castro's revolutionaries in 1959, taking much of the world by surprise. In 1961, a combined force of American CIAgents and Cuban exiles invaded at the Bay of Pigs, hoping to initiate an uprising against Castro. This invasion failed and became a major embarrassment to US foreign policy. Since then, the Cuban military has attempted both to export their model of popular uprising and to intervene in revolutionary struggles around the world, sometimes successfully (Nicaragua, Angola, Ogaden War) and sometimes unsuccessfully (Congo, Bolivia, Ethiopia).

9 – Prussia

I guess I'm cheating a little bit here by ignoring Prussia's history after 1871, but the Prussians played a huge role in how modern armies and strategies are formed and maintained. Prussia was on the losing side of the War of the Fourth Coalition against Napoleon, resulting in the loss of one-third of its territory and its subjugation to the French. But after defeating Napoleon's France with the Sixth and Seventh Coalitions by 1815, Prussia was granted a huge amount of territory in Westphalia, Saxony, and the Rhineland (which included the industrial centres of the Ruhr). Over the next half-century, the Kingdom of Prussia's political and economic influence swelled to make it the dominant German state of the 19^th century. After losing the First Schleswig War (1848-52) to Denmark, Prussia rallied back with three astounding victories against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and finally France (1870-1). It was after the war against France that the German states became united under Prussian leadership to become the German Empire, which lasted until 1918.

8 – India

In the early 19^th century, India was more-or-less run by the British East India Company. It was under Company Rule that India scored numerous victories against the Persians, the Sikhs, and the Chinese while suffering few losses. But following the Indian Mutiny of 1857, the British army dissolved the Mughal and Maratha Empires, bringing all of India under the direct governance of the crown. And so for the next 89 years, the rampaging Indians took part in a spectacular stream of conflicts putting down rebellions, expelling raiders, and expanding their territory. India also served in a multitude of colonial wars for their British masters, including both World Wars, the Russian Civil War, and the Turkish War of Independence. Since gaining their own independence in 1947, India has participated in several limited/regional conflicts with mixed success. For example, India lost to China in 1962 but won against Pakistan in 1971.

7 – Australia and New Zealand

Yeah, I know anyone from Australia or New Zealand reading this (like that'll ever happen) is going to be pissed that I've lunked both countries together, but their war records are so similar – and admittedly, I'm not terribly familiar with either nation's history in particular – that I can't separate them. In fact, both countries' troops served together in the combined ANZAC Corps of the First and Second World Wars. Not only that, but most of their wars were victories. Both countries served their British masters in the Second Boer War, the Boxer Rebellion, and both World Wars. After achieving full independence, both nations were involved in the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the Afghanistan War. The only major difference I can see between the two is that Australia took part in the Iraq War while New Zealand did not. I guess the Australians are the more bloodthirsty of the two.

6 – The United States

Everyone today knows about the seemingly worldwide US hegemony of the mid/late 20^th century, but their international exploits have not always been successful or well-received. Both World Wars were unquestionable wins, and many Americans today dubiously claim that the victories were entirely of their country's doing. The Korean War was technically a stalemate, but I'm willing to count it as a win because the US war aim of preserving the government of the Republic of Korea was achieved. Conversely, the Vietnam War was a loss because the US's goal of preserving the Republic of Vietnam's government was not achieved. The US saw successes against Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), Somalia, and Yugoslavia. And yet immediately after this time, US forces became bogged down in lengthy wars against insurgents in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (twice). However, I do think the USA's military success in the Americas are exceptionally impressive and deserve much more attention. Through the various Indian Wars (which lasted until 1924), Washington DC extended its sovereignty from sea to sea. American territory was massively expanded with very few setbacks (those being the War of 1812 and Red Cloud's War). Moreover, the defeat of Spain in 1898 not only awarded the US with the Philippines and Guam, but more importantly it gave the United States free reign over the republics of Central America and the Caribbean. It was in these countries between 1898 and 1934, US forces staged no fewer than 29 interventions, coups, and occupations in what are now known as the Banana Wars. Oh yeah, there was also that US Civil War; Americans were on both sides so that means the Americans won! And lost. If nothing else, the United States does deserve credit for maintaining one of the largest, best financed, and most advanced militaries in world history.

5 – Canada

Aw yeah, girl! You knew Canada had to be on this list somewhere. So since confederation, Canada had to defend its own turf from the Fenian Raids (from the US) and the Northwest Rebellion (1885). As a loyal member of the British Empire, the Dominion of Canada participated in the Sudan Campaign, the Second Boer War, and the First World War. After attaining independence in 1934, Canada's armed forces fought in the Second World War, Korean War, Gulf War, Bosnian War, Kosovo War, and the Afghanistan War: all of them victories. In fact, I think the only loss that Canada's army ever suffered was during the Russian Civil War, and that was probably because our troops didn't really get to do anything and were denied the opportunity to wreak the havoc they so dearly craved.

4 – The United Kingdom

No nation in modern history has been involved in more wars than the UK. For the past 200+ years, Britain's armed forces have been one of the most powerful in the world, thanks to its historically outstanding navy and its experienced, professional army. After losing the Wars of the 3^rd, 4^th, and 5^th Coalition against Napoleon's France, victory finally came in 1815 with the 6^th and 7^th. During the 19^th century, the British Empire expanded – often by conquest – to become the largest empire in world history. By the early 20^th century, the Union Flag was flying over such places as India, Sudan, Egypt, and South Africa: “from Cairo to Cape Town” as was often said. Some wars were fought within the context of colonial competition; i.e. showing off to the other European empires. These sometimes went well (the Crimean War, the Opium Wars), sometimes not so much (First Anglo-Afghan War, the First Boer War). The UK was one the key victors of both World Wars, and despite the Empire reaching its territorial zenith in 1922 the seeds of decline had already been sown. The country was more-or-less bankrupt and the war efforts of the colonies/dominions gave rise to nationalist movements everywhere. British forces notably withdrew from places like Ireland, Palestine, and Egypt just to name a few. Most withdrawals went OK, but the Aden Emergency was a disastrous exception. Other conflicts during the post-war period included the Korean War (a stalemate/win, depending on how you see it), the Suez War (a costly win), the Cyprus Emergency (a costly win), the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, and the Iraq War. Postwar British forces have had exceptional success in counterinsurgency operations in places like Dhofar, Malaya, and Kenya. During both the Troubles in Northern Ireland (1968-98) and the Falklands War (1982), Britain successfully defended her territories from terrorists and invaders. Despite recent problems with financing and under-staffing, the British armed forces retains its enviable reputation as an impeccably trained and professional fighting machine.

3 – Israel

The day after declaring its independence in May 1948, Israel was forced to defend itself against a huge coalition of Arab nations. But this coalition was poorly coordinated and was defeated easily. The young nation quickly organized itself as a tightly regimented society, ready to respond in the event of a crisis by mobilizing its substantial reserves. The go-to strategy that emerged was one of a quick and devastating attack (led by air power and fast-moving armour) to eliminate any Arab threat. Israel swiftly defeated Egypt in the Suez War of 1956, but was made to give up its gains. Twice more – in 1967 and 1973 – Israel duked it out with Arab coalitions, and twice more Israel won, albeit at a progressively higher cost each successive time. During these wars, Israel's borders had expanded to include all territories of the former (British) Mandatory Palestine, including the land allotted to the Palestinian Arabs under United Nations resolutions. This nearly 50-years-long occupation has been the source of an incredible amount of unrest – with the two Intifadas from the Palestinians and the multiple crackdowns/supressions from the IDF – which Israeli troops typically win. Elsewhere, Israel's forces have been involved in wars in Lebanon (1982, 2006) with mixed success. Still, when it comes to conventional war nobody does it better than Israel.

2 – Ireland

For decades Irishmen had volunteered for the British military in such conflicts as the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War. But the Irish War of Independence in 1919-22 resulted in most of Ireland becoming its own republic. Immediately after this, the new country was engulfed by a brief civil war. The most well-known Irish conflict of the 20^th century was the Troubles, in which Irish republican terrorists and Ulster loyalist terrorists slugged it out over the political status of Northern Ireland while security forces from both the UK and Republic of Ireland tried keeping things under control. After nearly 30 years of turmoil, both sides called it a stalemate. In the meantime, Irish forces had participated in UN operations in Somalia and East Timor. The republic has yet to lose its first war.

1 – Brazil

Brazil is one of those countries that, as far as I can tell, has never lost a war. Ever since winning independence from Portugal in 1824 Brazil has put down numerous rebellions, participated in both World Wars, and fought in a multitude of regional wars against countries like Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay: and always on the winning side. No wonder they have such a big country.

Book Vs. Movie - V For Vendetta

   V For Vendetta is a 2006 thriller adapted from a 1988-9 graphic novel of the same name. Written by the critically-acclaimed author Alan Moore, the comic told the story of V, an anarchist revolutionary dressed as Guy Fawkes who plots to take down the fascist British government in a dystopian future (1997-8). The film has since become a cultural icon, the Guy Fawkes mask becoming a world-reknowned symbol of anti-government protest. But does the book offer anything more than the film? Why did V become so popular after the film's release, but not the book's? Let's find out.

   One thing you'll notice is that the movie's story has been changed up a fair bit from the book's, so for that reason I'm going to summarize the plots from both.

   First the book, which takes place in 1997/8. It is now approximately one decade after the USA and USSR blasted eachother to smithereens, rendering much of the world uninhabitable in the process. What remains of the United Kingdom is now a single-party fascist state ruled by the ruthless Norsefire Party. A 16 year-old girl named Evey is rescued from would-be rapist policemen (called “fingermen”) by the mysterious V, who then blows up the Houses of Parliament and takes Evey to his hideout, the Shadow Lair. Detective Eirc Finch is tasked with following the trail of bodies. V kills or incapacitates several people who, as Finch later learns, all worked at the Larkhill Resettlement Camp where V originated and that everyone who might have been able to identify him is now dead. Disgusted by V's show of violence, Evey leaves and moves in/sleeps with a much older man named Gordon. When Gordon is murdered by gangsters (under Ally Harper) months later, she plans on getting violent revenge, but is captured and imprisoned before she can carry it out. Evey then undergoes several weeks of torture and starvation, yet she refuses to give up information on V's identity or whereabouts even when threatened with execution. But instead of being executed, Evey is set free only to discover that her imprisonment was a hoax devised by V so that she could share in the experience that shaped him. Evey forgives V, who then reveals that he has hacked into Fate – the government's near-omniscient supercomputer system – and is using it to manipulate the supreme Leader Adam Susan into a fragile state of mind. V soon blows up 3 more government buildings, effectively cutting off the party's surveillance abilities. The fingermen – led by Peter Creedy – and his associated gangs (again, under Harper) try to suppress the revolutionary fervour erupting in the streets. Meanwhile, Finch correctly deduces the Shadow Gallery's location, taking V by surprise. After a brief scuffle both are wounded, V mortally so. V makes his way to Evey and dies in her arms. Meanwhile Adam Susan is shot during a parade, just as Creedy hoped. Creedy assumes emergency leadership of the country. The resulting power struggle between the remaining high officials results in all of their deaths. Disillusioned, Finch quits his job. Evey, dressed as V, appears before a crowd to incite a general insurrection. Using an underground train containing V's body and tons of explosives, she then blows up 10 Downing Street.

   And now for the movie. This story takes place in the 2020's in a world where the US is devastated by a Second Civil War and Europe is ravaged by the “St. Mary's Virus”. The UK, which for the past few years has been untouched by the epidemic, is still ruled by the fascist Norsefire Party. V rescues Evey Hammond (who in this version works at the state-run television network [the BTN], not a munitions factory) from the Fingermen and together they watch the Old Bailey being blown up. The next day V hijacks a BTN broadcast to deliver a speech to the nation inviting everyone to join him at parliament on next year's Guy Fawkes Day. The police attempt to capture him, but Evey helps him escape and they both flee together to the Shadow Gallery where V tells Evey that she must stay one year. Just as he did in the book, V begins axing off his former camp associates. Evey offers to help him take out one, but uses the opportunity to escape to the house of her boss, the talk show host Gordon Deitrich. As a show of trust, Gordon shows Evey his basement of subversive materials. Soon thereafter, Gordon does a sketch on his show lampooning the government and its High Chancellor (not Leader). This leads to Creedy and the police raiding his home and arresting him. Evey tries to escape, but is captured and imprisoned. Her imprisonment scenes mirror those of the book exactly. The difference is that once Evey forgives V, she still decides to leave him, yet promises to return before 5 November. Meanwhile, detective Finch learns of V's origins at Larkhill, in the bioweapons program detention centre. Following the trail, Finch meets a man named William Rockwood who explains to him that the program – which was directed by the now-current High Chancellor – was used to create the St. Mary's virus. This virus was released upon the British population as a false terrorist attack (similar to the Reichstag Fire), killing tens of thousands and allowing the Norsefire Party to sweep into power. (The cure was released soon after the election by a pharmecutical company owned by the inner party members. And nobody noticed this?) Finch later learns that Rockwood was actually V (even though it was pretty obvious). As 5 November approaches, V mails thousands of Guy Fawkes masks to Londoners who begin questioning the Party's rule. V proposes a deal with Peter Creedy: he'll surrender if Creedy executes High Chancellor Sutler. The two meet. Creedy executes Sutler in front of V (suddenly and rather anti-climatically), but V refuses to surrender. A shootout occurs in which V kills Creedy and his men, but is mortally wounded. He makes his way to Evey, who has returned to the Shadow Gallery, and professes his love for her before dying in her arms. Finch discovers the lair just as Evey loads V's body onto the explosive-laden underground train, but he allows her to send the train on its way to Parliament. A large crowd of masked people (a rather cool-looking visual) converge on Parliament just in time to see it demolished.

   So yeah. Pretty different. Let's go over the methods by which the producers changed things. As with a lot of movie adaptations, the story was altered to give it a more actiony feel. The movie doesn't go as far with this as a lot of others do, but it's pretty clear that the escape from the BTN station scene and the scene where V kills Creedy were just added for thrills. But to be fair, I'd still consider this a “thriller” movie, so whatever.

   If you've read the comic, you'll definitely notice that there were characters left out of the movie. This includes Ally Harper, Dominic Stone, Derek and Rose Almond, and Conrad and Helen Heyer. Yeah, the comic had a ton of characters in it, and because of film's feature-length time constraints I think it was fair to expect that some of them would be jettisoned. With the possible exception of Rose Almond's story, I don't think the dropping of these characters was that big a loss.

   There are however many characters whose movie depictions are noticeably different than the book's. For example, the film version of Eric Finch seems to already be skeptical of the government's morality. Although he initially disbelieves the Norsefire plot to unleash the St. Mary's virus, it doesn't take much to change his mind later. Also, he chose to allow Evey to blow up the parliament buildings (effectively joining V's cause, taking the place of Stone in the comic) whereas in the book he remained loyal to the side of law and order. Even after his great epiphany moment, the comic book version of Finch still sought after V and tried to kill him. The main bad guy in the film is High Chancellor Adam Sutler instead of Leader Adam Susan. They changed it from Leader to Chancellor to make it sound like 1930's Germany and they changed his name to Sutler to make it sound like “Hitler”. Do you get it yet? Have they hammered it in enough for you? Whereas in the book the Leader was a solitary, depressed figure whose loneliness was manipulated by V through Fate (which is completely absent in the film, by the way), the film's version of the Leader is a total non-character. All he does in the movie is be grumpy, yell at his subordinates, and threaten them. And lastly, Gordon was completely changed from his depiction in the comics. Instead of a small-time bootlegger, he's now a talk show host who's also a closeted homosexual (which is a crime under this regime). This is one change that I actually like; since he and Evey already know eachother there's already a trust bond the audience can buy. Not to mention, the thought of a 40-something sleeping with a 16/17 year old girl ain't quite right. Also, I really like the scene showing Gordon's comedy sketch. It's a bit of good old fun, a rare moment where the movie doesn't take itself so seriously.

   As for Evey, she's a bit older, has a steady job, and is more confident and open to rebellious ways of thinking than she was in the book. The original portrayal of Evey showed her as a desperate and timid young woman who was being forced into prostitution. Also, the ending of the book has her taking up V's disguise and continuing his crusade. As for V, he seems a bit more romanticised than his comic book counterpart, who is ruthless and keeps you questioning whether or not he is truly a hero or villain. He also seems to use a lot more words with V in them. At least his voice sounds cool thanks to Hugo Weaving. The movie also played up the V-Evey relationship into a full blown romance, which was simply unnecessary if you ask me.

   One major change in the movie that rubbed me the wrong way was how Americanized it was. Instead of an anarchy vs. fascism conflict (i.e. criticizing Thatcher) we get liberalism vs. neoconservatism (i.e. criticizing Bush). (This would explain why there is far less rioting and chaos in the movie.) The Norsefire government of the movie doesn't appear to care about racial purity – in the book, they more or less exterminated Britain's black population – and instead are concerned with wiping out Islam. Likewise, the whole “the government initiated a crisis in order to give itself more power” sounds an awful lot like some 9/11 conspiracy theories. And more blatantly, it is implied that the movie's ongoing US Civil War is a result of the War on Terror. Now look, I'm all for updating old stories to make them more relevant to modern audiences, but in this case having Americans write and produce the update causes the story to lose its overall British character. Even the two lead characters are portrayed by American actors, for cryin' out loud!

   In fact, there are even moments where it seems the movie's story was dumbed down for American audiences. For example, the comic hardly ever mentions Guy Fawkes by name, but the film flat out explains who he is right in the opening (and continuously mentions him several times throughout). Also, whereas the book began with V blowing up parliament and ends with Evey blowing up 10 Downing Street, the movie begins with V blowing up the Old Bailey and ends with Evey blowing up parliament. Why'd they change this? Maybe because blowing up parliament would make for a more impressive finale... or because the filmmakers didn't think American audiences would know what 10 Downing Street is?

   Here's a few more change-ups I noticed, yet couldn't categorize anywhere else:

• Instead of traumatizing Lewis Prothero – a propaganda broadcaster – like he did in the comic, movie V just kills him.
• The use of Beethoven's 5^th Symphony is used in different scenes. In the comic it is played when V kills Bishop Lilliman. In the movie it is played when V breaks into Creedy's house and makes his proposition.
• The movie makes little mention of the “body part” ministries found in the book: the Nose (police), the Finger (secret police), the Ear and the Eye(surveillance), the Mouth (propaganda), and the Head (inner party/government)
• Neither the book nor the film show V's face. However the movie suggests that most of V's body is covered in ghastly burn scars, so one can assume that his face would be a big disfigured scab.

  And so that's V for Vendetta. As you can probably tell, I much prefer the book over the movie; it comes off as a more complete, thought-provoking, well-rounded, and realistic story. Nevertheless, the movie is enjoyable enough. It's a decent thriller that does a reasonable job of bringing its original tale to life. But if you haven't read the book, just be aware that you're doing yourself a big disservice.

Movie Review - X-Men: Apocalypse

   X-Men: Apocalypse is the third film in the new x-team series (as I call it), the sixth X-Men film overall, the eighth if you count both Wolverine movies, and ninth if you also count the Deadpool movie. (Dude, the tenth one should just be called X-Men: X!) That's a big universe to follow, but if you remember 2014's Days of Future Past you'll recall that the slate was wiped half-clean. So how does the latest X-flick add on to the legacy of one of the longest-running superhero franchises ever?

   Clumsily is the word I'd choose. Let me explain why. The film – or at least the version I saw – opens with Alexandra Shipp (Storm) thanking the audience for attending/repaying the film crew's hard work and wishing them an exciting viewing experience... OK then. The frick was that? Some kind of preemptive apology?

   Apocalypse takes place in 1983, ten years after the events of DoFP which means that we get to see our favourite mutant characters in some bodacious 80's hairstyles. Magneto has finally found a peaceful life. Or has he? Yeah, I'm not spoiler alerting this one as it's such an obvious plot device that you can see it coming a mile away. The only thing surprising about it is that both the most precious things in Magneto's life are ended by the clumsiest policeman in film history; seriously, the guy gets a no-scope double kill with a freakin' bow! Anyways, the ancient Egyptian super-mutant Apocalypse is awakened from his 5500-year slumber and intends to establish himself as the god of Earth. He's so powerful that he causes all of the world's nukes to launch and hang in orbit until people just sort of forget about them... um. So what happened to them? Did they just disappear? What a let down! I thought something really cool was going to happen with those tens of thousands of nukes, but we're just supposed to forget them? Lame! So the X-Men must band together if they're to have any hope of defeating Apocalypse and his Four Horsemen (who don't really do much until the end). It's a story that does provide a bunch of fun and interesting scenes, but it also meanders a lot. The film is loaded with scenes that didn't need to be added. For example, there's a scene in which the entire X-mansion is destroyed (from just one little jet engine blowing up) which only serves as a chance to show off Quicksilver's abilities as in the kitchen scene from last film. Another is when Quicksilver reveals that Magneto is his father, but again this plot thread goes nowhere and hardly adds anything to the story. But the worst case is when a bunch of characters are kidnapped and taken away to Colonel Stryker's Weapon X test site. This 15-20 minute scene only exists for the sole purpose of shoving in a Wolverine cameo. All of these scenes are wholly inconsequential to the plot and feel like they were only added to provide some unnecessary fan service.

   One thing I do have to commend this movie on is that it has the largest roster of characters of any X-Men flick yet. The only downside to this is that the writers clearly didn't know what to do with all of them. A lot of the time you'll be wondering “what is _____ doing right now?” Half the time the answer is “standing around, doing nothing.” The worst offender in this category is Moira MacTaggert. I know she doesn't have superpowers, but could you at least have given her something to do other than standing there looking worried? (Actually she is responsible for Apocalypse awakening, so yeah, everything bad in this movie is her fault.) Another problem I've noticed with a lot of the characters is that they don't seem to age. Shouldn't Xavier and Mystique be in their mid-40's by now? Shouldn't Havok be about 35ish? Again, MacTaggert is especially affected with this ailment; Xavier himself remarks at how she “hasn't aged a day” in the past 21 years. Remember how Moira was a competent enough character in First Class, but she had her memory wiped at the end? Well, in Apocalypse the payoff to that is that she's now a clueless airhead who is the butt of a lot of lame jokes. Also, if you blink you'll miss Jubilee. I smell deleted scenes. But not all the characters suck, in fact some are done even better than they were in original trilogy like Jean Grey, Nightcrawler, and Cyclops (even if his personality seems a little inconsistent at times). Even the longtime established characters get some development, like Mystique and Magneto. And best of all, Xavier is now bald!

   Maybe it's just me, but the CG effects didn't look all that good, which is a shame because the makeup effects looked great. At one point an early Metallica song, “The Four Horsemen”, is used during one of Apocalypse's scenes. That was awesome. Less impressive was the film's use of the Auschwitz scene from the very first X-Men film in 2000. That makes this the third time we've seen this footage. How lazy is that? They should have been concentrating on giving us a Ronald Reagan impersonator.

   What is impressive is the number of things in this film that wind up being unintentionally funny: scenes with people getting partially stuck in walls, people yelling “no!” in an overly dramatic fashion, security camera close-ups, Apocalypse randomly building a statue of himself and his minions in the middle of a frantic battle scene, and scenes with people in the background standing together staring at eachother. I chuckled a fair bit.

   On the whole, X-Men: Apocalypse is a great big mess. The script would have seriously benefited from another proofread or two. If you liked the previous two X-Men movies, then you'll probably like this one. Otherwise it's just more of the same from a franchise that really needs to try something new next time. There's one scene where some characters walk out of a theatre after seeing Return of the Jedi and one of them jokes that a franchise's “third movie is always the worst”. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Grade: two and a half out of five.

Alternate James Bond Continuity Theories

As I mentioned last week, fans of the James Bond 007 series are pretty dedicated and creative, enough to come up with such fan theories as the Code Name Theory. As promised, I'm going to go over some other 007 chronology theories today: not because I think any of them are valid, but because they seem rather interesting and fun. Let's take a look.

The Dual Timelines Theory

   One theory I've heard is that the ending to On Her Majesty's Secret Service spawned two separate alternate universes. The first splits directly into the Roger Moore era, in which Bond was able to keep his rage and anguish from losing Tracey under control. That's why the James Bond of the Roger Moore era is so lighthearted and pleasant; it's his way of coping with it. Once he finally, and rather luckily, got his revenge on Blofeld in the opening of For Your Eyes Only, he found true closure and happily continued a few more years until his retirement after A View to a Kill.

   The alternate timeline picks up at The Living Daylights. In this version Tracey's death led to Bond being consumed with anger and the drive for revenge. This accounts for why Timothy Dalton's Bond is so ruthless and intense. This timeline continues to the end of the Brosnan era. (The Daniel Craig era is presumably a different universe altogether.)

   This is a pretty interesting theory. The only problem though is that it doesn't account for the events of Diamonds Are Forever. Which timeline does that one belong to, if any?

Tying Up Loose Ends

   Another theory I've heard is that James Bond is indeed a codename passed down successively through agents, but each new 007 appointee is given a file detailing their predecessor's activities. This is so that each new agent can tie up the loose ends of his predecessor. This explains why Connery's Bond is so obsessed with finding Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever. Perhaps Lazenby's Bond just couldn't handle seeing his wife killed and quit the service, thus forcing Connery to return from extended leave to finish this one last mission. This explains why Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond in OHMSS. Also according to this theory, Lazenby's Bond wasn't reminiscing over the gadgets in his office; he was wondering what they were. He hadn't been agent 007 for long, so it may be possible that he hadn't fully cleaned out Connery's junk from his office yet.

   As for Blofeld, one could argue that that name is also passed down along to the next highest ranking Spectre agent: number two, number three, etc.

   While this is a pretty creative idea, it's a bit too convoluted to take seriously. I'd like to think that both Bond and Blofeld are the same guys they've always been.

The Spirit of Bond

   I've seen a couple comments saying that Bond's character is always the same, it's just that his consciousness switches bodies...OK. So 007's spirit floats around and possesses the bodies of already-grown men after leaving the body it's possessed for the past decade or so? Then whose consciousness was it originally? Is that man still alive? Is it Ian Fleming's? Is each host's body already an MI6 agent? What happens to the host body after the spirit leaves? Did it possess Connery twice then? This is just weird.

Daniel Craig's Bond is Connery Bond's Son

   Think about it, man. In real life Craig was born in 1968, when Bondmania was at its height. Perhaps Craig's Bond is the illegitimate son of Connery's Bond, named after his father. He then grew up wanting nothing more than to be a spy. His lifelong training is what allowed him to develop such marvelous skills. Under the watchful eye of Judi Dench's M he is swiftly promoted to 00 status, leading to his cocky attitude in Casino Royale. It makes perfect sense, right? After all, both characters are Scottish! Yes, this is just some crap I cooked up. You got me.

James Bond is a Time Lord

   Yeah, heh heh heh heh heh. No! If you've ever browsed any sort of comments section talking about the Code Name Theory then you've probably seen this joke about 10,000 times. And no, it doesn't get any funnier the 10,001^st time. Also, I'm not from the UK; I couldn't care less about Doctor Who. So I've got a better idea...

James Bond is an Immortal à la Highlander

   It's brilliant, isn't it? The only downside is that he's only ever been in one sword fight (Die Another Day). Future movies should have a long-haired Bond get in epic swordfights and slicing dudes' freaking heads off while hard rock music blasts. I wanna see more of that in the sequels!

Judging the "James Bond Code Name Theory"

   In the past decade, the internet has been much more geared toward user-generated content. As a result, movie fans have been able to share a plethora of fan theories about their favourite films. This extends to the James Bond 007 series which, as exquisite as it is, is still not perfect. Of course it's fair to expect a 50 year old movie series with 24 entries to have a few inconsistencies. The most popular fan theory of explaining these disparities is the Bond Code Name Theory, which asserts that the name “James Bond” is not agent 007's real name but instead a code name that is successively passed down along MI6's best agents. It's an interesting theory, but does it hold water? Let's take a closer look at the infamous Code Name Theory.

The Case For

   The main purpose of the Code Name Theory is to explain why the character of James Bond does not age despite the obviously changing times (Cold War, Space Race, War on Terror, etc.) and stages of technological advancement. The Theory also explains why Bond's appearance and personality seem to change over the years. Third, the Theory also goes some way to account for the fact that agent 007 just can't seem to maintain any romantic relationships. And lastly, the Theory accounts for the fact that the spy's name is thrown around so much; pretty much everyone knows agent 007's name and so it would make little sense for him to be using his real name while on missions. Such a code name scheme could also be extended to account for the changes in both M and Q's appearances. (This explains how Judi Dench continues her role in the Craig-era films.)

   The evidence supporting the Code Name Theory comes mainly from just one movie: 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service featuring George Lazenby as the second actor to portray James Bond. The opening scene of that film concludes with Bond looking at the camera after the hot chick gets away and saying, “This never happened to the other fellow.” According to the Code Name Theory, this is Lazenby's Bond referring to his predecessor (Connery) as agent 007. The other main bit of evidence supporting the theory is the fact that Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond despite their meeting face to face in the previous film You Only Live Twice.

The Case Against

   There is much more evidence countering the Code Name Theory than there is supporting it. For instance, there's a scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which Lazenby's Bond is considering resigning from MI6. He looks through a collection of gadgets in his drawer, reminiscing about past adventures (which took place in the Connery films). A similar scene appears with even more gadgets later in 2002's Die Another Day. Diamonds Are Forever shows Connery's Bond obsessed with finding and killing Blofeld. Considering that in the previous film Blofeld killed Bond's wife, this suggests that both Bonds – Connery and Lazenby – are the same character.

   In fact, references to Tracey Bond (and her death) are littered throughout the series. Here's a list of them:

• In The Spy Who Loved Me agent Anya Amasova lists everything she knows about Bond (Roger Moore), including the tragic end to his brief marriage. Bond impatiently cuts her off with “Alright, you've made your point.”
• For Your Eyes Only opens with Bond (Moore) placing flowers at Tracey's grave.
• Felix Leiter tells his newlywed wife in License to Kill that Bond (Timothy Dalton) “was married once, but that was a long time ago.”
• Elektra King asks Bond (Brosnan) in The World is Not Enough if he has ever lost someone close to him. Bond briefly pauses, then changes the subject, ignoring the question.

   Admittedly those last two points aren't very conclusive, but I'd like to think that they are indeed referring to Tracey. If they weren't, then they would just be random, inexplicable lines leading to nothing, and that would just be Tommy Wiseau-level of sloppy filmmaking.

   Other than that, there are additional pieces of evidence linking Bond portrayals together. For example, in The Spy Who Loved Me Moore's Bond runs into an old friend from Cambridge University, the same place where Connery's Bond recalled studying in You Only Live Twice. The Code Name Theory is also debunked by the fact that Bond is still called Bond after he leaves MI6 in License to Kill. His absence from they spy game is the reason why he's being evaluated for duty at the beginning of the following film, Goldeneye (featuring Pierce Brosnan taking the place of Timothy Dalton).

   Taking the Code Name Theory to its logical extreme quickly reveals its ridiculous reasoning. While the theory may be appropriate for such characters as M and Q, is it really appropriate to other characters who have changed actors like Ms. Moneypenny, Ernst Blofeld, or Felix Leiter? Are we also supposed to assume that recurring actors like Maud Adams, Charles Gray, Joe Don Baker, and Walter Gotell are playing the same character every time?

What About Daniel Craig?

   This one's easier to figure out. The films featuring Craig as Bond take place in a separate, rebooted universe from the rest. This is proven by the opening scene of Casino Royale, which shows Bond earning his 00 status early in his career. This is further backed up by the fact that in Spectre Bond has clearly never heard of the organization before. As for the continued presence of Judi Dench, I'm guessing the producers finally realized that they oughtta do something with this Academy Award-nominated national treasure of an actress, so her role was expanded upon in the following three films.

   It's also pretty clear that James Bond is this character's real name. In Skyfall Bond returns to the orphanage where he grew up. The groundskeeper there recognizes him and calls him James Bond. Furthermore, we later see the grave of 007's parents and their headstone has the name Bond engraved on it. If that doesn't convince you that the Theory doesn't apply here then I don't know what will!

Conclusion

   In my view, the Code Name Theory sounds interesting but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Most of the evidence supporting it comes from just one movie, and even then the most important piece of supporting evidence (Blofeld not recognizing Bond) comes from a simple continuity error. (In the book order, OHMSS came before YOLT , which would mean Bond and Blofeld were meeting for the first time in OHMSS. The screenwriters must've forgotten this when the movie order was changed around.) I think it's pretty conclusive that every Bond actor from Connery to Brosnan all portrayed the same character. Taken as a whole, the series' chronology was never all that comprehensive/cohesive, and the chronology of the 007 movies was probably never meant to be taken too seriously.

   Still I think it's cool that the fans have been dedicated enough to devise a way to try to make sense of everything. It really goes to show how much the fans care about this great series of films. Now if a black actor were suddenly cast as Bond, that would really throw a wrench into things... Anyways stay tuned next week when I'll go over some alternate 007 continuity theories.