Midnight in Paris (4 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Woody Allen is most famous for his Romantic Comedies. And what better place to talk about romance than in the city of romance itself, Paris. It's a movie about how great it was in the past and the impact it has on a writer who's on a romantic tight rope. The beginning consists of a montage of Paris shots that look as if they would appear on postcards. Woody Allen does this similar tactic with Manhattan, where he shows a montage of New York. This is crucial to the movie as it later becomes a character of its own. After all, Gil Pender, played by Owen Wilson, practically falls in love with Paris.

            In this movie, Gil and his fiancée, Inez, played by Rachael McAdams, are on a trip to Paris with Inez's parents, while working on a novel. Gil loves the city so much that he practically wants to live there while Inez wants to live in Malibu. They meet a pedantic tour guide who seems to sound like a "Pseudo-Intellectual." Although Gil seems to enjoy Paris with its art and culture, he doesn't feel happy when around Inez and the tour guide.

            What's strange about this movie is that it's a time traveling movie, and yet, it works like Groundhog Day, where there is no explanation to the fantasy elements. The character ultimately goes along for the ride and doesn't care at all on whether it's real or not. The way it works is that every midnight, a Peugeot pulls up and picks Gil up. There he gets transported to the 20's, the best time to ever be in Paris.

            The movie does a brilliant job of placing famous actors and actresses into people who were even more famous. Because Gil is transported to the 20's, he meets numerous people that most of us would all gone to love, or at least recognize. There is Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, Salvador Dali, Luis Bunuel, Man Ray, T.S. Elliot, Gertrude Stein, Toulouse-Lautrec, and many more. What's interesting about them is that they are seen in their normal outgoing casual way, not like an over the top caricature of the represented person. Occasionally, there are some slip-ups that result in some inside jokes regarding the person. Ernest Hemingway speaks as though he is reading his own book, Dali acts in a surreal way by talking about Rhinoceros, and Zelda seems off the wall strange. However, Woody Allen uses these characters to his advantages and does a great job of pulling off some jokes with them. In one scene, Gil talks about a movie idea to Bunuel, causing him to say, "I don't get it," even though that seems to be the point of Surrealism.

            In my own opinion, this movie reminded me of a short film segment from Paris, Je'Taime by Wes Craven. In it, a man meets the ghost of Oscar Wilde, where he gives the man some pointers about love. To me, there is this feeling that only happens when meeting dead famous people, especially in this short segment. There is this feeling of being star struck but in a more intellectual way. I felt the same way while watching this movie. It's fun to watch people from the present interacting with famous people from the past, especially when they're star struck by Ernest Hemingway.

            Because Woody Allen is not in this movie, Owen Wilson takes his place as the Woody Allen character. Heck, he even dresses up like Woody Allen. In this movie, Gil Pender essentially plays the role of a writer who has troubles with his life. He self-reflects that his own movies are wonderful but forgettable, and he even says that he's a hack screenwriter who never really tried writing a novel. However, for the sake of argument, there are some interesting contradictions. One, Woody Allen is described as pessimistic, while in the movie, Gil seems to feel optimistic all the time, with the landscape, and meeting the various people from the 20's.

            The main theme of the movie is about the idea of living in the past and coming to terms with the present. Gil's book is about a Nostalgia shop, which essentially is what the whole movie is about. In a way, it's about a man (Woody Allen) who wants to live in the past, who writes about a man (Gil) who wants to live in the past, who also writes about a man (The Novel's protagonist) who wants to live in the past. Anyways, the movie remarks on how bad the present is, like terrorism, global warming, the bad economy, and Tea Party references. Gil sees Paris in the 20's as the best time to ever be in Paris. Most of the great authors were alive and writing books during those times, like Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and T.S. Elliot, there were new interpretations of art being born in Paris, such as Cubism and Surrealism. There is a term called "The Roaring Twenties" where nothing really bad happened during that decade. Even though the theme of the movie is that they leave the past and learn to accept the present, the past is always a great tempting subject to get lost in. The way the movie shows the past makes us want to live in it. I've always wanted to sit next to Dali, Bunuel, and Man Ray, and simply talk about Surrealism.

            Through this movie, we can see that Woody Allen is in love with Paris. After watching this movie, I've come to love Paris. I'll even like the rain in Paris. The trailer said that Paris in the morning is beautiful, Paris in the afternoon is charming, Paris in the evening is enchanting, and Paris at midnight is magical. I cannot agree more with all of these statements.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            After what was known as a dead franchise due to unappetizing sequels after sequels after a bad remake, surprisingly, this was a Planet of the Apes movie that was done really well. Before seeing this movie, I thought that it was going to be predictable, being that the movie is a prequel to Planet of the Apes. We all know the twist in the original movie and the prequel is based on that twists. It all comes down to the question, "How exactly did the apes conquer the world?"

            Will, played by James Franco, is a scientist who’s trying to find the cure for Alzheimer’s disease. However, after one of the chimpanzee test subject goes berserk and shot down, the experiment gets shut down and Will has to take care of one of the baby chimps after all of them were euthanized. After a couple of years, the baby chimp grows up into becoming Caesar, the chimpanzee and while Will’s dad is growing weak from Alzheimer’s, Caesar is getting smarter and smarter. However, after some altercation with the neighbors, Caesar is sent to a primate facility where he learns about the truth of what they do to animals.

            The greatest aspect of the movie was Andy Serkis in his performance as Caesar the chimpanzee. James Franco did a pretty good job as his role in the movie; however, the star of the show was Caesar. He portrays real emotions through the use of visual effects. The special effects were used in the right direction, not as bright lights and fireworks, but as a way to enhance the storytelling and using the medium to make us relate to something that doesn’t talk. We know which ape is which and we understand certain ones. Caesar becomes a tragic hero who later accepts his place as a liberated animal. The greatest moments in the movie are not the action scene, but the subtle moments where we see Caesar’s emotions.

            Because the monkeys would eventually take over the world, Evolution plays a big role in this movie. Like any nature related movie, no matter how much civilization will make an attempt to triumph over nature, nature will ultimately win through civilization’s own hubris. In this case, there is an attempt to use monkeys as test subjects for the cure of Alzheimer’s disease. However, the cure boosts the monkey’s intelligence and has negative effects on humans.

            Caesar seemed to be in the wild, in the Redwood forest. He sees a dog chained up and questions the idea of pets. The way the chimps adapt to their surroundings is through their intelligence. When Caesar was in the animal shelter, he uses his wits to steal a pocket knife as a tool and later a taser, showing the evolutionary step of acquiring tools.

            The movie has some snippets of references from the original movie. The Icarus space shuttle takes off, and there is a newspaper that states that the space shuttle is lost in space. Later on in the climax, the chimps use spears and at one point, ride horses during their raid on San Francisco, showing the certain things the chimps will do in the original movie. There is a moment that exactly mirrors the scene where Charlton Heston gets captured and says the famous line, “Get your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape.” In the movie, the Tom Felton character tries to subdue Caesar and when Caesar grabs his arm, Tom Felton says the famous line. Also, the movie also has a soundtrack that mirrors the music from the original movie by emphasizing on percussion.

            The movie has a wonderful sense of utilizing its cinematography and visual effects to its full potential. Although the ending was a bit farfetched, the Golden Gate Bridge scene was executed pretty well, especially having the scene foggy for suspenseful reasons. There is a huge tracking shot that follows Caesar from the kitchen, all the way up the stairs and into the attic in one shot. There is a scene of Caesar climbing a Redwood tree and reaching the top to gaze at the San Francisco cityscape. In terms of visuals, I prefer the chimpanzees this way rather than making them too human like. The subtle look on their face and their reactions to certain things make the chimps realistic. The chimps in this movie remind me of the performance done in 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the monkeys are all played by human pantomime in monkey suits. The realism of their performance from both movies made the animals more likeable and we get to understand them as if they’re human. The visual attempt to blend with the story is so astonishing that we start to root for the chimps. We start to feel emotions when one of them dies.

            We root for the apes to win because the apes are humanized, while some of the humans are incompetent. We have the businessman who doesn't care for the welfare of human beings, but only money. There is an evil monkey caretaker, played by Draco Malfoy in his American form, who’s cruel and abusive to the monkeys. In fact, he is so evil that he seems to do every animal abuse trick known to monkey, like spraying them with a firemen hose.

            Overall, the first movie showed audiences a ground breaking way of using makeup to better enhance the characters by giving the apes human like physical qualities. Rise of the Planet of the Apes does this exact idea; however, instead of giving the apes human physical qualities, they are humanized through the motion capture performances of actors like Andy Serkis. If Planet of the Apes got honorable mentions for their use of makeup, then Rise of the Planet of the Apes should get special nods in their use of visual effects.

Final Destination 5 (2 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            No one ever cheats death and that's all there really is to it. I should end this review here and move on to something that's not predictable. However, I will admit that there are some pro's in this movie that tries its best to outweigh the bad elements. The beginning title was interesting, the bridge scene was done really well, there are two endings that worked really well, there is a somewhat better way of establishing the characters and relating to them, the mysterious coroner returns, and there is a great concept of choosing to kill or be killed.

            I'm not even going to describe the synopsis because it's the same with all of the other movies. However, I will say that in the premonition in the beginning, Molly, one of the main survivors, actually survives the premonition. Another idea to point out is the mysterious statement that the coroner says to the main characters. He says that if you kill a person, then you'll gain that person's remaining years. This theory works when one of the victims pushes someone in the way and has him killed instead. Afterwards, the person next on the list dies, proving that the previous survivor has so far cheated death.

            The acting was average. There is a Tom Cruise looking guy who was pretty good in the movie, especially in the end when he knows that he's next on the list and acts paranoid and sadistic. To offset the average remark, I have to wonder, why is the bad acting womanizer guy in this movie? Some of the acting was horrendous and extremely as cringing as the unnatural dialogue that plagues the movie's script.

            Was that really necessary to have those certain grossed out moment? This is the equivalent of watching a bad raunchy comedy. To me, there are two different types of gory scenes. One is when the gory scene works so much that it will shock and traumatize the audience. The other would be the icky and gross moments that will get the audience saying, "Oh, that's nasty." I would prefer the first type more, all because it's more effective in a good horror movie; however, they chose with gross route instead. There are moments when the victim dies and all of a sudden, there is one more gory jump surprise before we cut away. Really, is this necessary in the movie?

            Here is an interesting question to pose on the victims. You just had a near death experience. Doesn't it make you edgy to make you do incredibly dangerous tasks, like working in a construction site, Lasik eye surgery, or being a gymnast? Again, because this is a teen slasher movie, the teens are written in a way that makes them do stupid things that'll get them killed. Not to mention, establishments in this movie will probably be sued. These people didn't die because death was after them. The actions that the doctors, or the massager, or the construction worker were just either incompetent or stupid. And of course, they always say, "I'll be right back" and come back to see their patient inside out or something. Who's the real person to blame here?

            The beginning disaster was surprisingly nice and shot really well. Because the disaster is over a collapsing bridge, the height is nauseating and vertigo like. The fall itself is good enough for being scary. The ending was well played with the Tom Cruise guy and the two main characters. Because the Tom Cruise guy is next, he must kill someone or be killed. Because Molly was never meant to die on the bridge, the Tom Cruise guy plans on killing her. This leads to moments where fates will be changed and unpredictability will unfold. Even though I won't say what the real ending is about, well just remember the phrase, "death doesn't like to be cheated."

            Although I'm not a big fan of 3D, the medium was used effectively, and yes, body parts do fly at us. The beginning of the movie consists of objects flying towards us and glass breaking in our faces. There are times where the deaths just went too far, in terms of gore and 3D combined. There are times when the movie over indulges like the fourth movie. However, like the other movies, the deaths are predictable, especially the first couple of them. The trailer is full of deceptions as well as being spoiler ridden. I was really hooked into the trailer and how it looked a lot darker and better than the fourth one. However, after watching the movie, I've seen just about everything I've seen in the trailer. In the trailer, the deaths were shown without the person actually dying, and the mysterious theory of kill or be killed is told in the trailer.

            Because of studio pressure in showing the coolest of the cool death scenes, the movie, yet again, turns into a sappy teen slasher movie. I will say though that this movie was better than the third and the fourth movie for being smarter with its premise by giving the survivors a chance to live. The 3D was used as a gimmick, but it was used in a way that sort of worked. However, being that it's a scary movie that involves 3D, hopefully the movie will scare people away from using 3D glasses.

Contagion (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            This was a huge surprise for me when the first couple of minutes showed up in this movie. I never had much thought about this movie when it was first announced in the trailer. I thought Matt Damon's character was a little off, and the dialogue was clunky. I saw Outbreak, and I thought this movie would have the same premise. I was considerably wrong.

            There was something special with this movie by just the way it started. It starts with a black screen and a bunch of sound effects that we, the audience, hear in our daily lives. Whenever we move from point A to point B, there is always someone coughing and/or sneezing. Someone in the movie mentions that we touch our face about two to three thousand times a day. In the beginning, we see montage of how the virus is spreading across the globe, from Hong Kong, to London, from Japan, to Minneapolis. With each passing day, there is an emphasis on the text that reads "Day 2" or "Day 137," showing the progression of the virus and how it starts to escalate into a pandemic. At the end of the movie, we get to see "Day 1," where the curtains pull back and we, the audience get to see what the people in the movie don't get to see, reminding me of "Citizen Kane."

            This movie looks and feels like an apocalyptic movie, but sad fact of the matter is, it's one of the few apocalyptic movies that can actually happen. The Spanish Flu pandemic in 1918 killed 1% of the world's population, and because our mode of communication has vastly increased, what would happened if the CDC didn't know what they're up against? Everything in this movie felt real. We see the situation of the people in the CDC and how they're trying to find the genesis of the virus, as well as studying its nature. All the while, we have them trying to maintain and establish order when everyone knows about the virus. Even if a vaccine was discovered, problems would still arise with producing it for the masses, as well as distributing it without creating a riot. There is the conflict over who gets it first.

            Meanwhile, we have the strict point of view from Mitch, played by Matt Damon, who witnesses the virus firsthand as well as how civilization is tearing itself apart. Beth, played by Gwyneth Paltrow, shows that she's sick and probably got it during her business trip in Hong Kong. All of a sudden, the doctors announced her dead without knowing what happened. It turns out that she was the first to get sick by a virus that would soon spread all around the world. Mitch's daughter comes and stays with him, causing Mitch to be overly protective. Mitch appears to be immune to the virus; however, he doesn't know whether the daughter is immune or not, therefore not taking any chances.

            It's always a scary thought to know how a virus can be airborne, as well as through bodily contact. It's a scary fact when you hear the news that the nurses and the doctors don't even know what to do. It's a scary thought on how a virus can destroy civilization, even with all of our technological advantages at our disposal. There is a haunting image of an empty airport terminal, showing how the virus has impacted people's lives mentally. You can argue that this movie is emphasized on a CDC's worst case scenario, but this movie is certainly not about Swine Flu. I scoffed at the media's interpretation on the H1N1 virus and how it was blown out of proportion. This movie, on the other hand, is no laughing matter.

            Steven Soderberg has his misses and hits; however, this movie is very similar with his Academy Award winning film Traffic, where we see different stories on how the drug war is affecting three different non-related lives. In effect, this movie's narrative is told the same way with different protagonists and how their lives are affected by a pandemic through the business side, as well as the personal side. I was a bit skeptical about the casting choices for most of these actors and how they would serve as Oscar bait only; however, Soderberg seems to know how to direct these A-listed actors into making a great movie where story comes first. Soderberg knows how to make a pandemic thriller without the shock and awe. There is no blood or gore on screen, or anything horrific that people will dare each other to view online. It's a wonderfully made thriller that focuses on the "what if's" from a grand worldly scale, to a small family. However, because the story is set in a grand scale and all of the main characters are all over the world, it would help if we can have a better satisfying ending with all of the characters. Mitch's ending was done perfectly, Dr. Ellis' was a bit ambiguous.

            The movie is based off of fear realistically. Every time someone touches a door knob, a credit card, food, poker chips, rails, shopping carts, anything, the camera will linger on it, emphasizing and evoking a germ-a-phobic sense of paranoia. While I was in the theater, someone was coughing, and I bet there were a couple of heads turning. I have a sense that hand sanitizers will be used and sold after this movie.

Warrior (3 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Boxing movies are the greatest sports sub genre of all time. Nothing matches the raw and gritty performances of two characters pounding each other into submission. However, therein lies a problem where boxing movies tend to repeat its formulas over and over again. I will give exceptions to these movies, as long as it has a touching story and if it focuses more on the character and his internal crisis. So much that it voids those certain clichés.

            Warrior has a unique premise and it's character driven in a way where all of this leads to a big ending that I will not reveal. It's a well done boxing movie; however, I must still point out that it's still a boxing movie, with all of its Rocky moments and the whole character arc. There are moments where the two characters are struggling, whether it's about the past, or it's about making ends meet. There is a training montage that's arguably done pretty well, and there is a climactic battle in the end where the arc goes full circle.

            Tommy was a former marine from Iraq who saved a tank full of soldiers and is considered a war hero. He also has a haunting past during the war and decides to redeem himself by training with his dad, Paddy, played by the wonderful Nick Nolte. Paddy was a former trainer who became a drunk and a horrible father figure. Tommy plays aggressively and simply walks away from his opponents when he wins the match. Because of his fast wins, Tommy wins the crowd and the marines.

            Brendan was a former MMA wrestler and is now a family man, as well as a Physics teacher. He chooses to remain independent from his dad because of his past life as a drinker, and lives a separate life away from his blood family. Because he can barely live off of ends meet, Brendan decides to train for boxing, and because he's a former wrestler, he typically takes his time in the ring and wrestle the opponents until they tap out. Because Brendan was a high school teacher, his students, and even the principal who fired him roots for him.

            The movie cuts back and forth to establish these two separate characters who don't even meet up until we get to the near end of the movie. They both seemed to be in opposites of each other and actually hate each other. Their fight together was more of a personal brawl rather than a clean match for a title. This was a real boxing movie about family ties and the importance of where you come from. Basically, it has the same idea with The Fighter but excels in its concept more.

            I will point out that there is a threatening boxer in the movie named Koba, from Russia. Because we already know about the premise of the brothers fighting each other, through logic, we know that Koba is going to lose. Therefore, I really see no point in blowing up his characters in a situation when the real situation was about the two brothers.

            The movie introduces us the world of mixed martial arts. It's basically boxing, kicking, and wrestling fusion. Because of this, there are more opportunities to do things other than punching. There are moments where the fighters can be in serious damage because of its brutal nature. Cinematography wise, it's a bit shaky and it works during certain moments, and there are some where a fluid camera move would've sufficed. I love the fact that some of the shots were behind the fence where we see the fence out of focus, showing the fight through the audience's perspectives.

            This movie's ending was perhaps the most gripping ending since Rocky where it all comes down to the last battle to end all battles. The two brothers, whom we've come to love and respect, are now fighting each other. Only one of them is going to win, and this notion of who's going to win got me at the edge of my seat. It's an ending that's different where victory and getting the title doesn't mean anything. In the first Rocky, Rocky loses the first battle, but we still end up feeling satisfied. When Adrian runs up to Rocky and exclaims how proud she is, that's the genuine winning moment. In this movie, when one of the brothers win while the other loses, there is no winning moment, there is a moment that shows how the brothers leave their past behind and how they start their relations anew.

            I see this as a battle between a Democratic vs. another Democratic. Or a Republican vs. another Republican. If I see this as a Democratic vs. a Republican, then I would obviously root for only one of them. In this movie, I want both of them to win. The two journeys of these characters and the arc that we've seen for more than two hours all lead up to the ending that is both sad and satisfying.

            This movie was decent in execution. It accomplishes a bold move by having two main characters rather than one underdog. Because of this, I feel that the movie should be changed to Warriors rather than a singular Warrior, because I don't want to choose between which of the two is the warrior implied. I want to say both of them are.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon (1 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            At last, we've finally come to the hopeful conclusion to a dying franchise that people flock to in order to say that it was bad but it had some great visuals. Right when the Paramount logo came up, I knew that I was stuck for a very long time, and I mean a very long time that Michael Bay can afford to agonize us with. On the bright side, it seems like the Transformers franchise will finally end, but then again, there are ways in bringing back villains and meaningless plots.

            The movie starts pretty strong with the launch of Apollo 11 where there is a secret mission to the moon in which the astronauts go and investigate the wreckage of a ship. It turns out that one of the Primes is still alive and Optimus Prime revives him.

            The title itself is a joke for it sounds silly. It's sad to say that the proper title was already taken from the Pink Floyd album, “Dark Side of the Moon,” which they even reference in the movie; however, if you took "Transformers" off of the title and took away the advertisements, then no one will ever watch this movie.

            First off, Sam Witwicky is a very uninteresting character and his recession sub-plot has no say in the movie. In fact, he complains that he doesn't have a job, despite saving the world twice and getting an award from Obama. At one point he gets turned down because the workers are Republicans. As always, Sam is accompanied with his annoying screen hogging parents who find new ways in provoking my patience. Honestly, why are they still in the movie if all they are going to do is annoy Sam and disappear?

            Because the lead girl was fired, by contract, there has to be a love interest in the movie. Why? So that they can use the low angle shots to keep the audience hooked on the boring talking parts. I would stress the point that Carly Spencer's role was absolutely useless. All she did was become eye candy and a damsel in distress for reasons I don't even care about. Honestly, there is no depth in her character and it seems ludicrous that Sam would get a new girlfriend of whom we don't care about, except maybe for the fact that she British. Another insulting idea about it was the fact that she was a model with no acting experience. I have nothing against models, but the fact that she was casted because she was a model is stupid and it shows that acting is not necessarily required in these movies anymore.

            The slow motion scenes are becoming too indulgent. No one exclaims about the wow factors for there are no significant ones. After a while, it becomes so repetitively cumbersome and annoying. There is a scene where Bumblebee tackles a pillar and it's set to slow motion. There was one scene that people in the theater laughed at where Carly is standing perfectly still in a green screen like moment where explosions and fighting robots occupy the background, and yet she's standing perfectly still, all set to slow motion.

            This whole movie is set to Michael Bay’s arrogance. The action scenes are more about moments of gloating rather than substance. In fact, the money spending spree goes too far where Megatron blows up the Lincoln Memorial just so he can sit on the seat. There is the ending that takes place in Chicago. Because it’s filled with a whole lot of buildings, cars, and people.

            It was too long. The Chicago scene, although dazzling and interesting it was, the scene went too long where all they had to do was to blow up a small piece of a building. They could've done that in ten minutes, if not then at least fifteen minutes. Instead, they drag it on with pointless after pointless moments of mind numbing actions. I was impressed with the scene where Shockwave crushes and destroys a building for some of the scenes didn't involve computers.

            The characters in the movie are uninspiring and most are treated as filler. John Malkovich’s character was an interesting character that disappears out of nowhere. Ken Jeong was in there because he was Ken Jeong. Lastly, the most untouchable and respected character is reduced to ridicule in this movie. What I mean was that Optimus Prime's actions were not justified. He appears as the wise sage who narrates the story. With that being said, Optimus Prime actually makes the wrong decisions and reduces himself into doing things that only villains will only resort to. He whines and complains in this movie, and he does some cold blooded moves on certain people, even when one was trying to settle a truce. After doing so, he tries to justify his actions with a narration that encompasses the theme.

            I, at least liked the story a little more than the second movie. There was a tad bit more substance, even though they over thought themselves again like in the second movie. Why not just using a simple plot like in the first movie where both the Autobots and the Decepticons want to find a simple but powerful item like the Allspark?

            I’m officially through with insulting movies such as these. I’m through with these types of movies that spend their money for moments like blowing up the Lincoln Memorial. I also hate the fact that people do not know when to end their trek to these showings. They know they’re going to hate it and they expect nothing more from Michael Bay. Well, at least it wasn’t as bad as the second movie. At least I didn’t have the urge to leave the theater this time.

X-Men: First Class (3 1/2 Stars - 4 Stars)

            Every sinking franchise must have a reboot in order to keep the fans alive and well. It worked with the Batman franchise, the James Bond franchise, the Star Trek franchise, and now, it works with the X-Men franchise. The first two movies were done really well with Bryan Singer behind the camera. He now returns in the producer role in this new prequel, or what I would argue as a reboot. The all too familiar "Usual Suspects" lineup and the titles, "Bad Hat Harry Productions" gave me a nostalgic trip back to the first two movies before they were soured up.

            The movie focuses on Charles Xavier, and Erik Lensherr as they were young during the backdrop of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Charles' goal in life is to find, and study mutants, welcoming them in open arms. Erik's goal was to kill Sebastian Shaw, who murdered his mother in the concentration camp. Meanwhile, Sebastian seeks in creating a nuclear war, in order to secure the mutant race, by staging the Cuban Missile Crisis.

            The first part that works really well is the reintroducing of the characters. Mystique is my favorite character in this movie because before, we would see her as a loyal henchman who doesn't have a word in anything. In this movie, we know how she feels, we know her inner conflict, and the chemistry formed between certain characters. The other thing I like about this movie is how we identify Professor X as Charles, and Magneto as Erik. They are more than just action figures. They are mutants with relatable human qualities. We understand Erik's pain in the concentration camps and his path to find catharsis through killing Sebastian Shaw. On the other hand, Charles serves as the shoulder angel and tries to talk Erik out of his destructive path. We see Charles more in this movie instead of him as the wise old sage. We see him with conflicting scenarios and we see him suffer.

            This works so much for an X-Men movie. For one, Charles sets up a school for mutants. However, in this movie, Charles actually trains the new recruits. We see a bright and wonderful montage of each mutant progressing during their training. I also like the civil rights inserts in the movie. The X-Men franchise is to reflect on the Civil Rights movements and the right for equality. In this movie, there are some homosexual inserts that are a little fun to spot out, such as, don't ask, don't tell, and being proud. For once, this movie deals greatly about accepting one's identity. We see Raven with her hideous blue form and not accepting it, and in the end, she becomes proud of herself as a mutant. I respect that and I think that's what defines an X-Men movie.

            The movie is visually told really well. Although the fight scenes are spectacularly done, it does not get so much in the way of the story and is used only when needed. Apart from the split-screen editing used in the training montage, there are some impressive visuals, such as the missiles flying back and forth, and the fight scenes. Being that it's a prequel. The prototype look served really well. The X-Jet is a modified version of the Blackbird. The original X-suits were blue and yellow. The basement was not high tech at all but more of a bomb shelter.

            The movie does a fine job of reinventing the franchise through drastic changes. Now there is a difference between the inconsistencies with movies like "Armageddon," as opposed to this movie. In Armageddon, the story was boring and clichéd ridden. It got to the point where the story doesn't really mattered and the movie experience is taken away. All that's left is pointing out the numerous flaws in the scientific accuracy of the movie. In this movie, I was captivated in the story so much, that the inconsistencies and the plot holes didn't really mattered. It was the same with J.J. Abram's "Star Trek," where we get so into the story, we learn to accept Kirk as a fast paced rebel, instead of noting his major differences in the old movies.

            It's an X-Men movie that we've long been waiting for. It's a great X-Men movie, but above all, it's a great movie in general. Despite being a reboot, or having many continuity errors, the movie ties everything up so neatly, leading up to the all time rivalry of Magneto and Professor X. For every rivalry to form, there has to be a good solid reason. This movie answers the "why."