Movie Review -- Solo: A Star Wars Story

  Another Star Wars movie already? But it's only been five months since the spectacle of mediocre dumbness that was Episode VIII: The Last Jedi. If Disney and Lucasfilm want moviegoers to spend their hard-earned doubloons on another Star Wars film so soon then they'd better bring their A-game. Or as Grand Moff Tarkin would say, “We're taking an awful risk, Kathleen Kennedy. This had better work.”

  Solo: A Star Wars Story follows a young Han Solo on his first heists in the galaxy's criminal underworld. Along the way he teams up with prisoner Chewbacca, smuggler Lando Calrissian, thief Tobias Beckett, and Han's former lover Qi'ra. It's a plot that's pretty dull, is somewhat predictable, and has lots of attempted jokes that don't always work. It seems that a lot of the scenes telegraphs their moves: they all begin with a character briefly mentioning some exposition about where they are and what's going on and right away you'll know “that thing he/she just off-handedly mentioned is definitely going to happen in the next ten minutes”. Lastly, there's an unacceptable amount of sequel-baiting for a movie that's supposed to be a self-contained chapter in an anthology series! Combine this with the fact that Alden Ehrenreich's contract is for three films – even though this first one is taking a beating at the box office – and you've got a pretty good example of what a cart before the horse looks like.

  But if you're a big fan of excessive fan service then you'll freakin' love Solo. Apparently everything important Han Solo-related thing in the Original Trilogy happened during this one adventure. You'll see the origin of every little thing you never really cared about from Han Solo's name to various classic (and some obscure) quotes. But this is all surface level reference stuff. Aside from Han's relationships with Lando and Chewbacca, there's no meaningful links to the original films or the Star Wars universe as a whole. If only they'd spent their creative energy on making this film worthwhile on its own.

  Speaking of which, Ehrenreich does an alright job in his performance as Han Solo, which largely sustains the whole film. Through him we see Solo change from underhanded idealist to cynical outlaw. But as good as Ehrenreich is here, he predictably doesn't hold up to the charisma of Harrison Ford. The same can be said of Donald Glover as Lando; good but not as good as Billy Dee Williams. Paul Bettany's performance as crime lord Dryden Vos is good, even if his character is somewhat generic and underutilized. Qi'ra is bland, not interesting at all. Oh yeah, and Chewbacca is now a savage brute who eats humans and rips people's arms off. Way to tarnish a classic character.

  It gets worse. There's this badass gang of speeder bike-riding pirates whose leader is later revealed to be a red-haired teenage girl with freckles. (Once you find out about this it is impossible to take her and her gang seriously.) There's an annoying droid who is an SJW (yes, even within the context of the Star Wars universe). And there's one character pointlessly brought back from the dead from a previous movie – it seems that nobody can let this person die peacefully.

  At least Woody Harrelson does a good job as Beckett.

  Solo's production value is about as good as most other Star Wars films: the sets look good, the music sounds exciting, and the CG effects are as frustratingly OK as ever. However, its scope is noticeably smaller which makes me wonder, by the Force, how the heck did this movie cost $250 million to make!? Not only is Solo the most expensive Star Wars movie, it's one of the most expensive movies period! No wonder this film is losing tons of money.

  So that's Solo: A Star Wars Story, an exceedingly average sci-fi action movie whose existence represents everything I dislike about today's Hollywood blockbusters: an obscenely-budgeted, unwanted cash-in with no heart made by uncreative studios who try shoving their politics in your face while also prematurely assuming that they'll be successful enough to crank out an unending, risk-free stream of sequels. Judged on its own merits Solo isn't terrible but it ends up being a lot like last year's The Last Jedi: by the standards of any old sci-fi action movie it's OK, it's just not a very good Star Wars movie.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Deadpool 2

  Has it really been two years since Deadpool took the world by storm and inadvertently convinced Marvel Studios to make all of their films the exact same laugh-fests à la Guardians of the Galaxy? Yup. Is the ultra-violent wisecracking Canadian mercenary still the best there is at what he does – like poking fun at Hugh Jackman? Yup.

  Deadpool 2 follows the titular merc with a mouth as he strives to protect a young mutant, Firefist, from Cable, an assassin from the future. This involves joining the X-Men, and later forming the X-Force. Hijinks ensue. Compared to the first Deadpool movie this one's story is a lot less standard and more imaginative. It goes in places you wouldn't expect, but just like the first one it also contains some tender moments. However the ending is just a little bit on the sappy side; without giving away too much I'll just say that Cable makes a particular decision that I find hard to believe.

  Deadpool's signature style of edgy, self-referential humour makes its grand return though in a slightly altered state. The sense of humour this time around is noticeably less crude and has more meta jokes. A couple jokes go on for just a tad too long and a few of the meta gags fall flat. But there's still tons of fun to be had with the references to other superhero films, the gratuitous gore, and the numerous and hilarious cameo appearances. The film's screwing with your expectations will leave you laughing out loud nine times out of ten.

  Ryan Reynolds pours on the charisma once again as Wade Wilson (AKA Deadpool) and all the previous film's oddball side characters are back such as Weasel, Blind Al, and Dopinder. It was also fun to watch Zazie Beetz in the role of Domino, a mutant who can manipulate luck. The villains of Deadpool 2 are way more interesting than those of the first Deadpool. Josh Brolin does an excellent job of bringing the hardened, no-nonsense Cable to life. Julian Dennison also does a fine job of portraying Firefist.

  As with its predecessor, this film boasts some outstanding fight choreography which is zealously showcased in slow motion. The special effects are also very well done... just not on Juggernaut though.

  So that's Deadpool 2, a fun superhero romp for the whole family. (Disclaimer: it's not for the whole family. Don't show this movie to young children.) If you were put off by the crass humour from the first Deadpool, don't be afraid to give this one a shot. With its wider range of characters, more interesting villains, and more creative story, Deadpool 2 is one of those rare sequels that's even better than its original.

  PS – There's no post-credits scene. Don't waste your time like I did.

Grade:

US Presidents Ranked Worst to Best, Part 2

Last week we looked at the worst. Now let's look at the White House's better half. These are the top 22 best Presidents of the United States.

22. Rutherford Hayes (1877-81)

• pros: upheld the gold standard, upheld the Monroe Doctrine, put down the Great Railroad Strike, civil service reform (based on merit)
• cons: ended Reconstruction, failed to protect black rights, didn't try for a second term

21. Ulysses Grant (1869-77)

• pros: established Department of Justice, implemented the gold standard, Enforcement Acts, outlawed the Ku Klux Klan, 15^th Amendment, Treaty of Washington, Peace Policy with Native Americans
• cons: Great Sioux War, mishandled the panic of 1873, corruption, scandals

20. Frankiln Roosevelt (1933-45)

• pros: ended prohibition, Good Neighbour Policy in Latin America, arsenal of democracy, Lend-Lease, Second World War, US world leadership
• cons: increased national debt nine-fold, beginning of big-government interventionism, expanded bureaucracy, possibly prolonged the Great Depression, Japanese internment

19. Harry Truman (1945-53)

• pros: oversaw the end of WWII, helped found United Nations, helped found NATO, Berlin Airlift, Korean War, desegregated the armed forces. Anticommunist
• cons: only world leader to use nuclear weapons on human targets, McCarthyism

18. Chester Arthur (1881-85)

• pros: civil service reform, naval reform
• cons: ???

17. James Garfield (1881)

• pros: civil service reform, universal education
• cons: died in office, only served six months

16. Donald Trump (2017-present)

• pros: tax reform, economic growth, travel ban from extremist countries. Won Chinese support in isolating North Korea, forced the DPRK to the negotiating table, got American prisoners released
• cons: airstrikes on Syria, omnibus spending bill, partial reversal of Cuban thaw

15. George H. W. Bush (1989-93)

• pros: ended US intervention in Nicaragua, pushed for German reunification, Gulf War, NAFTA, Points of Light, Clean Air Act
• cons: invaded Panama, broke his “no new taxes” promise, Savings & Loan bailout, deficits

14. Andrew Jackson (1829-37)

• pros: fully paid off national debt (only time in US history), US exploring expedition, upheld republican values
• cons: patronage, Indian Removal Act. His disestablishment of the Second Bank of the United States was partially to blame for the Panic of 1837

13. Grover Cleveland (1885-89, 1893-97)

• pros: anti-spoils system, modernized the military, anti-imperialist, preserved the gold supply, handled the Venezuelan Crisis well. Anti-corruption, small-government non-interventionist
• cons: his silver coinage policies were divisive, couldn't get a grip on labour unrest and the Panic of 1893

12. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)

• pros: Reaganomics, tax cuts, free trade agreements, INF Treaty, broke air traffic controllers strike, restored national pride/confidence
• cons: tripled the national debt, massively increased military spending, War on Drugs, bombed Libya, Iran-Contra Scandal, aided Mujahideen. Intervention in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Grenada

11. James Madison (1809-17)

• pros: reestablished the national bank, effective tax reform. The War of 1812 was very popular, united the American people, and broke Native resistance in the west...
• cons: even though the War of 1812 ended in a military stalemate mostly thanks to a mismanaged US army. Raised tariffs

10. Calvin Coolidge (1923-29)

• pros: tax cuts, national debt shrinks, dismissed corrupt officials from Harding's administration, left the Federal Reserve alone, withdrew US forces from Dominican Republic, Dawes Plan, granted citizenship to Native Americans, built highways
• cons: slow response to Great Mississippi Flood, vetoed the McNary-Haugen Farm Relief Bill

9. James Polk (1845-49)

• pros: annexed Texas and Oregon territory, Mexican-American War, Walker Tariff reduced tariff rates, established the US Naval Academy
• cons: ???

8. William McKinley (1897-1901)

• pros: Gold Standard Act, ended the Panic of 1893, Spanish-American War, Cuban independence, annexed Hawaii
• cons: Platt Amendment, Philippine-American War, weak response to growing racial tension/violence

7. John Kennedy (1961-63)

• pros: good handling of Cuban Missile Crisis, Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, established the Apollo Program. Supported civil rights and equality, abolished poll taxes
• cons: Bay of Pigs invasion, deficits

6. James Monroe (1817-25)

• pros: Monroe Doctrine, Treaty of 1818 granted harbour/fishing rights in Pacific, joint occupation of Oregon territory, acquired Florida, built canals, went on national tours
• cons: inadequate response to Panic of 1819, Missouri Compromise was divisive and unpopular

5. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61)

• pros: founded NASA, ended McCarthyism, built highways, Civil Rights Acts (1957, 1960), integrated public schools, “ended” Korean War, reduced spending, balanced budgets. Left office warning people about military-industrial complex...
• cons: even though he was largely responsible for the rise of the military-industrial complex. U-2 Crisis; undertook coups in Iran, Guatemala.

4. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)

• pros: Square Deal, trust-busting, peaceful labour relations, conservation, began the Panama Canal, helped broker and end to the Russo-Japanese war, established the Food and Drug Administration
• cons: Roosevelt Corollary used to justify interventionism in Central America (i.e. Big Stick Diplomacy)

3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)

• pros: Louisiana Purchase doubled USA's size, lowered taxes and spending decreased national debt, maintained neutrality during Napoleonic Wars, prohibited slave imports, Lewis and Clark Expedition, First Barbary War
• cons: bad relations with the British, embargoes against Britain did more harm to USA

2. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)

• pros: peacefully handled the Trent Affair, US Civil War, selected his own generals, Emancipation Proclamation, 13^th Amendment, moderate stance on Reconstruction, National Banking Act, Pacific Railway Acts
• cons: introduced federal income tax, Ex parte Merryman suspends habeas corpus

1. George Washington (1789-97)

• pros: maintained peace with Great Britain, suppressed the Whiskey Rebellion, established the national bank and other financial institutions, restored the nation's credit, re-established the US Navy, maintained neutrality during French Revolutionary Wars, Treaty of San Lorenzo, won the Northwest Indian War...
• cons: even though the war effort was disorganized and resulted in high casualties

US Presidents Ranked Worst to Best, Part 1

Happy President's Day... in May. Yes, my long awaited rankings of all United States Presidents is finally here. Sorry about that; the research took way longer than I thought. But that just means that this article will be very accurate and super-informative, right? As was the case with the PM rankings, I briefly spell out my reasoning for the rankings and while I'm not a history major I did study some American history in university so I do (mostly) know what I'm talking about. But first, a warning. As was also the case with my Canadian Prime Ministers rankings, a list ranking a nation's heads of government is inevitably going to be extremely political. This is all just a matter of opinion, so don't throw a temper tantrum if I didn't put your favourite prez very high or anything like that. So here we go, from worst to best!

44. James Buchanan (1857-61)

• pros: ???
• cons: no grip on (Democratic) party control, no response to the slavery/abolitionist dilemma, no response to the secessionist movement, largely responsible for the Civil War

43. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)

• pros: purchase of Alaska
• cons: clashes with Congress resulted in impeachment, opposed 14^th Amendment. His mishandling of Reconstruction resulted in the Black Codes and disenfranchisement for many African-Americans

42. Herbert Hoover (1929-33)

• pros: Reconstruction Finance Corporation
• cons: enforced prohibition, opposed anti-lynching laws. Infamously mishandled the Great Depression with his tax increases, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and his violent response to the Bonus Army

41. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)

• pros: Gadsden Purchase, trade treaties, reformed gov. departments to be more efficient and accountable
• cons: use of patronage appointments alienated his (D) party, Kansas-Nebraska Act leads to violence, was unable to resolve the slavery/abolitionist tensions

40. William Henry Harrison (1841)

• pros: ???
• cons: died after just 30 days in office

39. Zachary Taylor (1849-50)

• pros: Clayton-Bowler Treaty
• cons: died after 16 months in office, avoided the slavery/abolitionist debate

38. Richard Nixon (1969-74)

• pros: withdrew US from Vietnam War (temporary peace), returned POWs, Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, SALT I, established relations with China, enforced integration in Southern schools
• cons: expanded the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia, took US currency off the gold standard, imposed price controls, saw unemployment and inflation rise, supported Chilean coup, Watergate Scandal. Only president to resign

37. Lyndon Johnson (1963-69)

• pros: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act Clean Air Act
• cons: escalated Vietnam War, intervention in Dominican Civil War, urban riots, Immigration and Nationality Act. His War on Poverty, Great Society, and social welfare measures were extremely expensive and were arguably not very successful

36. George W. Bush (2001-09)

• pros: tax cuts, PEPFAR, No Child Left Behind Act. Handled 9/11 well
• cons: doubled the national debt, started the Iraq War, slow to respond to Hurricane Katrina, 2008 bailout, dismissal of US attorneys, torture in Guantanamo Bay detention camp. His Patriot Act initiated mass surveillance and loss of liberty for Americans.

35. Barack Obama (2009-17)

• pros: Cuban Thaw, ended the Iraq War, the assassination of Osama bin Laden, defeated ISIS in Iraq, first non-white US president
• cons: almost doubled the national debt, less transparent government that continued mass surveillance, automated drone warfare in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia. Helped destabilize Syria and Libya. Medicare, Recovery Act, deteriorating race relations. Cult of personality?

34. Martin Van Buren (1837-41)

• pros: peacefully concluded the Caroline affair, kept the peace with Great Britain (and Canada)
• cons: Indian removal policies killed many, was ineffective in dealing with the Panic of 1837

33. Millard Fillmore (1850-53)

• pros: Perry Expedition, stood up to the French over Hawaii
• cons: Fugitive Slave Act

32. John Adams (1797-1801)

• pros: achieved peace with France
• cons: undeclared Quasi-War with France, raised taxes led to rebellion, Alien and Sedition Acts infringe on personal liberties

31. Gerald Ford (1974-77)

• pros: Helsinki Accords
• cons: pardoned Nixon, increased national debt

30. John Tyler (1841-45)

• pros: annexed Texas, Webster-Ashburton Treaty
• cons: his excessive use of vetoes let to a cabinet revolt

29. William Howard Taft (1909-13)

• pros: trust-busting, introduced popular elections for US senators (17^th amendment)
• cons: Dollar Diplomacy, the Banana Wars. Both the Payne-Aldrich Tariff and the Pinchot-Ballinger Affair split the Republican party

28. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

• pros: Camp David Accord, Torrijos-Carter Treaty, SALT II. Partially responsible for inflation slowing down
• cons: Also partially responsible for 1980 recession, increased national debt. Mariel boatlift, supplied aid the the Mujahideen, couldn't handle the Iran hostage crisis

27. Warren Harding (1921-23)

• pros: Fordney-McCumber Tariff, Washington Naval Conference, established the Bureau of the Budget. Revenue Act of 1921 lowered taxes
• cons: his presidency was plagued with corruption, scandals, and affairs

26. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)

• pros: balanced budgets, welfare reform, Camp David Summit, NATO intervention in Bosnia
• cons: NATO intervention on Kosovo War kills hundred of civilians, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act leads to less accountability/transparency on Wall Street. Whitewater Scandal, sexual misconduct. Lewinsky scandal, perjury, impeachment.

25. Benjamin Harrison (1889-93)

• pros: Sherman Anti-Trust Act, national forest reserves, modernized the US Navy, good handling of the Baltimore Crisis
• cons: needlessly raised tariffs led to huge budget surpluses, initiated silver coinage which then drained the nation's gold supply. Dawes Act ended up depriving Natives of their lands. Massacre at Wounded Knee

24. Woodrow Wilson (1913-21)

• pros: Federal Trade Commission Act, Federal Farm Loan Act, lowered tariffs. First World War, 14 Points for Peace, advocated for a League of Nations
• cons: Revenue Act (income tax), Federal Reserve Act (Federal Reserve System), Sedition Act (limited freedom of speech), segregated federal offices. Interventionism in Mexico, Central America

23. John Quincy Adams (1825-29)

• pros: paid down national debt, border negotiations, several recprocity treaties
• cons: trade issues with Great Britain, Tariff of Abominations was deeply unpopular, frequently blocked by congress

That about rounds up the bottom 22. Join me next time for the top 22!

Movie Review -- Avengers: Infinity War

  Infinity War: could this film have had a more appropriate title? Infinite lead-up movies, infinite characters, infinite dollars. As with the first two Avengers movies, Infinity War ups the ante in terms of cast, action, and scope (though when you think about it Age of Ultron's stakes weren't that much higher than Avengers'). It truly is the most epic crossover since that time the King of the Hill characters cameoed in that episode of The Simpsons. But does it settle for sticking to that Marvel-money-machine formula that we've grown used to? Is it just another Marvel movie? Let's find out.

  Infinity War tells the story of Thanos's quest to attain all six of the infinity stones so that he can have unlimited power to re-balance the universe. In the process he takes on Earth's mightiest heroes, including the Guardians of the Galaxy, the Avengers, and various supporting heroes. To be honest, the first half of this 2.5 hour film does drag slowly as the disparate groups of characters each go on what's basically long road trips punctuated by chores. The phrase “how long is this going to take?” is spoken by various characters probably five or six times (not a good thing for an action movie). But once the plot threads start coming together, at around the half-way mark, Infinity War becomes an engrossing spectacle to behold.

  The tone of this film is also noticeably different than many recent Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) films. While it can still be jokey at times, Infinity War becomes more and more serious and bleak as it goes on. One could say that it borrows a page from The Empire Strikes Back playbook. (Speaking of Star Wars, there's a big battle scene in Wakanda that closely resembles the Gungan battle scene in The Phantom Menace. Did anyone else notice that?) This more ominous tone is reflected in the musical score, this time more dramatic and sometimes even quieter than previous MCU soundtracks.

  And it's all capped off by the most awesome ending to any MCU movie yet. As Batman might say, it wasn't the ending we deserved, but the ending we needed.

  As mentioned earlier, the cast of Infinity War is huge... sometimes a little too huge. It's not as bad as X-Men: Apocalypse in this regard, but you can tell the writers were struggling to come up with stuff for everybody to do. It takes a while to get all the heroes' introductions out of the way, and like I said most of the heroes spend a decent amount of time simply travelling to far away locations. Moreover there are a particular handful of characters who pretty much do nothing in the movie (aside from getting some punches in during the battle scene). Having said all that, there are a couple brief surprise appearances from characters we haven't seen in years (which I won't spoil here).

  But the film's biggest success in the character department is in its villain, Thanos. MCU films have been hit-or-miss when it comes to badguys, but Thanos is a fascinating person to watch. He's not just evil for the sake of being evil; he believes that he's carrying out the lesser of two evils. He takes no joy in what he's doing and even has to go through some personal sacrifices to achieve his goals. Thanos is a well-rounded, complex character here, arguably the film's main character, and Josh Brolin – with some help from some spot-on special effects – does an excellent job of bringing him to life.

  So to answer my question from earlier, I'd say that Infinity War is somewhat more than one would expect from any old Marvel movie. While it does have the same level of action (which is brilliant, by the way) and somewhat basic plot, it can boast an impressive cast and an exceptionally interesting villain. Needless to say, a film like this wouldn't work on its own at all. If you haven't seen at least half of all MCU films then you're going to be utterly lost. But for everyone else, Avengers: Infinity War is essential viewing.

Grade:

Movie Review -- A Quiet Place

  There's enough horror movies out there that are loud and in-your-face with cheap jump scares, but every once in a while there's one that comes out that emphasizes its atmosphere by making the audience focus on every little sound and movement. A Quiet Place is one of those films.

  A Quiet Place follows a family of four as they survive in a world ravaged by mysterious blind monsters that hunt by sound, killing anyone who makes all but the faintest of noises. This is especially challenging when (1) the mother of the family, Evelyn, is pregnant and (2) the daughter, Regan, is deaf. So as you can imagine, there's not a whole lot of spoken dialogue in this film, perhaps two solid minutes' worth. The rest is all done in sign language. And yet the film still produces a decent amount of drama thanks to its fine writing and capable acting. In the moments when the film isn't leaving you on the edge of your seat the plot portrays what it means to be a responsible parent in difficult times.

  While the characters are nothing we haven't seen before, they are well portrayed. Interestingly, I don't recall ever learning their names so I had to look them up. Writer/director/star John Krasinski brings his everyman sensibility to the role of Lee, the dad trying to keep his family safe. The other character of note is Regan, the rebellious teenager who is actually played by deaf actress Millicent Simmonds.

  Krasinski's direction makes A Quiet Place a film that's sleek, concise, and tense. During the stalking scenes you might find yourself keeping as silent as the characters onscreen.

  However, there are a few plotholes that may disrupt your experience. First and foremost, what are these monsters and where are they from? One could argue that since this is a film told from the perspective of one family that we're not supposed to know all the details of such overarching things. But that doesn't keep me from wondering who the elderly people in the woods were. Or why there was a nail sticking out of the top of the stairs. Or where the leaking water in the barn was coming from.

  Regardless, A Quiet Place manages to be an entertaining flick with a frighteningly original premise. It reminds me of last year's high-concept thriller, Split, though between the two of them I would recommend A Quiet Place for its more thrilling setup and more heartfelt story. Enjoy the silence.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Whoa. Research for my US presidential rankings article is taking way longer than I thought it would (I'm about 2/3 done). Sorry about that. In the meantime let's take a look at my original review of X-Men: Days of Future Past, a really good superhero film. In my opinion this was the best X-Men film of all until 2017's Logan hit the theatres. Plus it has Richard Nixon in it. Who doesn't love alternated history movies with Richard Nixon in them?

  Can't think of a proper introductory paragraph. Whatever, begin the review already!

  So X-Men: Days of Future Past begins in a dystopian future where Sentinels rule the Earth, enslaving/killing mutants and mutant sympathizers. Professor Xavier's surviving mutants send Wolverine's consciousness back to 1973 in an attempt to prevent the Sentinels from being created and thus save the world from devastation. So this movie actually has two plots/settings going on at once – resulting in simultaneous fight scenes – and it is presented splendidly. Everyone's favourite mutants can be found here as well as a few new ones like Warpath, Bishop, and Quicksilver. As always Hugh Jackman contributes an impeccable Wolverine portrayal. Both James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart give excellent, emotionally-charged dual performances as Professor X, who pretty much owns the film. Mystique's character is also fleshed out a bit more just as it was in First Class. And to top it all off we even get Richard Nixon! The only thing that's missing is a Stan Lee cameo. Seriously, where is he?

  Both the action scenes and special effects are very well done, reminiscent of the style of First Class. The jokes are decent and the set pieces are impressive. Also, if you've ever wanted to see Wolverine's butt then this movie is for you.

  However there are some problems present. Like why is Magneto such a counterproductive dick? And since when has Kitty Pride – the girl who can phase through solid objects – had the ability to project peoples' consciousness back through time? In 1973 Beast has found a cure for paralysis but he never bothers to share it with the rest of the world. What a jerk! There's also an unnecessary, ridiculous subplot about one mutant's involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Every successive line relating to it is even dumber than the last.

  Additionally, there's a few problems that have been carried over from other X-Men films too. We're still never given an explanation as to why/how Magneto's powers returned after losing them in X-Men 3. There's also no explanation for Professor X being alive after he died in X-Men 3. (And for those of you who say that he transferred his consciousness into a comatose man I still have some questions: Why does his new body look just like his original one? Why can't he walk still?) Days of Future Past also suffers from the same problem that plagued First Class: it doesn't fit in with the rest of the X-Men timeline (though just those two movies fit together OK). For example, Origins: Wolverine establishes that during this time period, Wolverine was working for Colonel Stryker with Sabretooth.

  But on its own, X-Men: Days of Future Past is a pretty good film. It has good action, exceptional acting, and a thought-provoking story. Come to think of it, the time-travelling, history-altering ending of this film kind of makes all the past plot inconsistencies not matter any more. Things are different now; it's as if they've rebooted the series without really rebooting it. It's incredible, really. This screenplay is a stroke of unparalleled genius!

  (Ahem.) It's pretty good despite evidence of several rewrites (some staple characters make only momentary appearances and a couple subplots end up going nowhere). X-Men fans and action fans will like it. The time-travelling and retcons give it a more comic book feel to it than First Class, which I'm sure some people will prefer. Just don't bother seeing it in 3D (in this case it isn't all that great).

Rating: three and a half stars out of five.