As I
stated in my first blog post, I will every now and then post a review of a
recent movie or TV show I’ve seen or a book I have read. These reviews will
mostly contain my initial reactions, though I can’t promise that I won’t get
off topic about random little details. I may discuss themes I found or other
elements that interested me. I will probably talk about characters or scenes I
enjoyed. I will likely give some kind of a rating in which I take into account
the story, the content, and how much I liked it. I can also pretty much
guarantee that any review I write of a book, TV show, or movie will be rife
with spoilers; read at your own risk. The first movie I’ve chosen to review is X-Men: Days of Future Past.
 |
| X-Men: Days of Future Past theatrical release poster |
Story and Reaction
Like any popular movie today, this
movie is set in a kind of post-apocalyptic future. In response to the mutant
hysteria, humans have created mutant-killing machines called Sentinels. In this
dark future (which takes place chronologically after X-Men: The Last Stand and The
Wolverine) the Sentinels have killed or captured most mutants, including
many X-Men. Those that have survived have only done so because Kitty Pryde
(Ellen Page) has the power to send mutants’ mind back into their younger body.
When Prof. X (Patrick Stewart) and other surviving X-Men arrive, they agree to
send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time to stop the Sentinel threat before
it begins. From here on, the film mostly takes place during the 1970’s, in a
time that is chronologically after the prequel film X-Men: First Class, though the film occasionally goes back to the
future to remind the audience of the danger the future mutants are facing. The
mutants from the future are relying on the success of the mutants of the past.
Meanwhile the mutants from the past are only doing what they are doing to stop
a terrible future from happening.
This was one element I loved about X-Men: Days of Future Past: the fact
that it takes place in both the past the future at the same time. I thought it
was clever how even though they were separated by several decades, the events
of both times affected the others. At the end, I was on the edge of my seat
because I was worried about both times at once. Now even though I’ve seen and
read many time-travel stories, this one seemed unique and that’s what I love
about it. I enjoy different types of time-travel , and it was cool to see this
film’s approach used so well (for more about my this, please see the note on
time-travel at the end).
Confusion and
Continuity
I guess
I should note now that this movie will only really make sense if you’ve seen
most of the other X-Men movies. The only movies really necessary to watch
before this one are the original trilogy (X-Men,
X-2:
X-Men United, and X-Men: The
Last Stand) and the prequel film X-Men:
First Class. If you haven’t seen these movies, don’t watch X-Men: Days of Future Past. If you have
seen these movies, I would say this movie is a worthy edition to the series and
even surpasses them.
All
movie series have continuity errors, but the X-Men movie series has had more
than its share. Most of them, however, can be explained away. One major continuity
error is the appearance of the old Charles Xavier, who seemed to die in The Last Stand. His survival is hinted
at in the post-credits scene. Earlier in the film, Prof. X was teaching a class
on ethics. He showed the class a video of a man who is alive but has the mind
of a vegetable. He then asked the class about the ethics of transferring the
consciousness of a dying man into this man’s body. In the post-credits scene,
this man in the hospital bed wakes up and speaks with the voice of Prof X. This
means he must have transferred his consciousness to this man before he died.
However, this doesn’t explain why he still looks like Prof. X or why he is
still paralyzed in the legs, but it’s the best explanation I can give. If you
have any other questions about continuity errors in this film or in the film
series in general, please do not hesitate to message me. I will at some point
post a question/answer blog post where I answer whatever questions you may have
about whatever.
Rating and Conclusion
This film is rated PG-13, and for
good reason. There is a great deal of violence in this movie. Many mutants
(especially in the future) are killed in brutal ways. A couple times people are
shown to be drinking and/or smoking, but it’s not really an issue in this
movie. When Wolverine wakes up in the 1970s, he is shown to be in bed with
someone else. When he leaves the bed, his backside is shown. And unfortunately, like almost every other X-Men movie, the character Mystique is basically naked for most of her on screen appearances. There is a
little language; a few s-words and one f-word. I can’t remember what else. In
general, the film rightfully deserved a PG-13 rating. It’s a good movie, just
not appropriate for all ages.
The
main reason I was so excited to see this movie was the fact that it was going
to be a time-travel movie that would unite the cast of the original trilogy
with the cast of the prequel film X-Men:
First Class. I loved Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen as Professor Charles
Xavier/Prof. X and Erik Lensherr/Magneto, respectively in the first three X-Men
films. But I equally loved James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as the young
versions of these frenemies. To see played by both sets of actors in the same
movie was a unique and awesome experience.
There
was a lot of violence, but only a little more than the other X-Men movies. The
content in general was no worse than any of the other movies. The music was
amazing, the special effects were awesome (especially Blink’s portal powers),
and the story was very well written. There was also some great acting,
especially by Ian McKellen (old Magneto), Patrick Stewart (old Prof. X), James
McAvoy (young Prof X), and Peter Dinklage (Bolivar Trask). In conclusion, X-Men: Days of Future Past is easily one
of my favorite superhero movies, and definitely my favorite X-Men film: I would
highly recommend seeing it in the near future.
*A Note on Time-Travel
(Caution: This note includes spoilers for LOST, Harry Potter, Star Trek, and X-Men.)
This
film’s approach on time-travel is not one of my favorites, but it works well
for this movie. Most works of fiction dealing with time-travel take one of two
approaches: the “Whatever Happened Happened” Approach or the “Time Can Be
Re-Written” Approach. In this discussion let’s begin with the “Whatever
Happened Happened” Approach.
The
“Whatever Happened Happened” Approach is named after an oft-repeated line from
the TV series LOST. Fans who felt
they had not experienced enough confusion already were introduced to
Time-Travel in season 5. After the island was moved using the frozen donkey
wheel, the characters still on the island began flashing through time. During
one of these flashes, the characters landed just a couple years ago, and found
themselves. At this point in time, there were two of those characters in
existence on the island. Later, when they get stuck in the 1970’s, they try to
change history by blowing up the hatch before it is built, but this plan
doesn’t work (even though the Audience is led to think it is through the
flash-sideways stories). No matter what they do, they cannot change what has
happened. Another film which follows this approach is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. When Hermione and Harry
use the Time-Turner, they go back in time and see themselves. They even
interfere with themselves when Hermione throws a rock at Harry’s head. But this
was not new. They had already done it; they just weren’t their other selves at
that point. When the executioner brings down his axe, it was always a pumpkin.
Never was it Buckbeak’s neck. Everything that happened already happened. It’s
destiny or fate. No matter what anyone does if they go back in time does not
affect the future, because it already happened.
The
main difference with the “Time Can Be Re-Written” Approach is that going back
in time actually does change things. Every time someone goes back in time, an
alternate universe is created. This approach is named after a line Amy Pond
said often in Doctor Who. I won’t,
however, use Doctor Who as an example
of time-travel. It breaks every rule ever created about time-travel. It goes
back and forth between the two main approaches but mostly uses the Wibbly-Wobbly
Timey-Wimey approach; it’s usually best to not question it. A better example of
the “Time Can Be Re-Written” Approach is Star
Trek (the 2009 movie). This movie uses time-travel to interrupt an
important event, changing the future for Kirk, Spock, and Company, and throwing
out all existing canon previously created by earlier Star Trek TV episodes and films. This is referred to in the film as
an Alternate Reality. The only one who knows of the previous timeline is old
Spock (who comes in handy for important info on characters like Kahn). Old
Spock in this movie is in a similar situation as Wolverine at the end of X-Men: Days of Future Past. He is the
only survivor of the future that was.
The Rogue Cut
 |
| The cover art for The Rogue Cut. It wasn't re-released in theatres, just released on DVD and Blu-ray. |
During the editing process of X-Men: Days of Future Past, the editors
and the director found that one sequence of the movie, involving the character
Rogue from the original trilogy, distracted from the overall plot of the film.
They cut most of that from the movie and had to re-shoot some scenes to make
the film complete again. About a year after the film’s release, they released The Rogue Cut, which puts those scenes
back in, as well as keeps the original footage that was shot. This is not an
extended version, but an alternate
version.
In
both versions of the movie, Kitty Pryde is wounded by Wolverine’s claw when he
almost slips out of time. In the theatrical version, Kitty simply holds on
until the end, but in The Rogue Cut, Professor X, Magneto, and
Iceman decide that she can’t hold on, so they decide to rescue Rogue, who is
being held captive inside Cerebro. After successfully breaking in and freeing
her, Magneto, Iceman, and Rogue are attacked by Sentinels. In a great deviation
from the theatrical film, Iceman stays behind to ensure their escape and gives
his life to make sure they make it safely. Since this whole sequence was cut
from the theatrical version, they had to reshoot a couple scenes of Iceman back
at the monastery, then reshoot him dying in a different place (though they
re-used some of the same effects). After bring Rogue back to the monastery, she
uses her power to steal Kitty’s temporarily, then takes her place in keeping
Wolverine back in time. Since this was all cut, they had to reshoot all these
scenes with Kitty there instead of Rogue.
Another difference is that there
is an entire sequence in the past where Mystique comes back to the mansion, has
a brief romantic encounter with Beast, then leaves, but not before smashing
Charles’ Cerebro helmet. They then figure out that she will be in Washington, D.C.
by seeing that there will be a special presentation there (in the theatrical
version, they use Cerebro to see that her plane ticket says Washington, D.C.). Apart
from these, there are a few scenes that
have been slightly extended with additional dialogue, but that’s it.
All
in all, The Rogue Cut is interesting
to watch, and it’s cool to see new footage, but I think I actually prefer the
theatrical version. Of course, that may be just because it’s what I’m used to.
I’ll need to watch both versions again to get a second opinion.
