"Green Lantern" Review

Two-And-A-Half Stars

Blake Lively is quite attractive. She's ridiculously good looking. Really, really ridiculously good looking. Oh right, the rest of the movie. I should probably talk about that. What can I say about it besides that it's your standard origin-story super hero movie? Not much, unfortunately. It hits on the same cliches and plot devices that we've become quite familiar with, thanks to all the different origin-story super hero movies that have come out over the last ten years. So let's see what exactly separates "Green Lantern" from the pack:

• Lost a close family member/significant other (Spider Man, Iron Man, Batman, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
• This loss has a profound effect (Spider Man, Iron Man, Batman, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
• Inherits responsibility that comes with super powers (Spider Man, Iron Man, Batman, Thor, X: Men, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
• Finds himself in over his head and wants to bail out (Spider Man, Iron Man, X: Men, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
• Has a realization and changes his mind (Spider Man, Iron Man, X: Men, Watchmen, GREEN LANTERN)
• Saves the day and gets the girl (All of them except Dr. Manhattan)

As you can see, the movie's pretty much your run-of-the-mill origin story, except this time with a ton of green CGI.

All that being said, I enjoyed "Green Lantern" even though it wasn't very cerebral. Was it good? No, but at least I found myself entertained in the way that simple-minded action movies are. And have I mentioned Blake Lively? Yes? Well let me just mention her one more time: Blake Lively. Ok, I'm done.

The movie follows fighter pilot Hal Jordan, whose father (also a fighter pilot) died in a fiery explosion when Hal was a boy, and Hector Hammond, a scientist and eventual antagonist. Jordan is selected to be the next Green Lantern after another Lantern crash-lands and dies on Earth after a giant evil monster bad guy named Parallax escapes imprisonment and fatally injures the Lantern. As Jordan learns about what it means to be a member of the Green Lantern Corps. (Lanterns must be fearless and utilize will power and imagination to fight evil), Hammond becomes infected with something extraterrestrial and begins to develop both psychic and telekinetic abilities. Oh, and Parallax is coming to destroy Earth.

What "Green Lantern" is really about, though, is confronting failure and fear. Jordan is too afraid to admit that he's afraid (and that was an actual line spoke by Ryan Reynolds, pretty much word for word; there was a lot of terrible dialogue) and worries he can't live up to the memory of his father, who he believed was absolutely fearless. Hammond, on the other hand, is rejected by Blake Lively's character and learns that his own father perceives him as a failure, motivating him to becoming villainous. This conflict is also seen through how good and evil fight in the DC universe: Green Lanterns derive their power from will, while forces like Parallax and Hammond harness and embrace power from fear. Lanterns triumph by overcoming fear through will power.

Now, of course, comes the good news and the bad news about the movie. I'll start first with what worked well. Ryan Reynolds, as Hal Jordan, did quite a good job. I'd say his performance carried the movie. The rest of the cast, while not particularly bad, didn't really stand out or impress. Peter Sarsgaard did what he could with the character of Hector Hammond, and Tim Robbins had a nice bit part, but the ensemble didn't match up to Reynolds or his character. Hal Jordan, at least, was a decent character. His motivations and struggles to accept being a Lantern created a plausible, if predictable, character arc. The only problem is that it's not a big arc. All that happens is that he grows up a little, rather than a lot. He starts out as a nice guy who's afraid to fail, not a spiteful jerk who doesn't care if he finds success. Yes, he puts the weight of his father on his shoulders, but it could have been done better.

But Blake Lively as a fighter pilot? Really? The problem with Blake Lively's character of Carol Ferris is that she's just kind of there. Jordan and Ferris had a prior relationship, but it's never explored enough to buy why they seem to both have deep affection for one another. How serious was it? Were they engaged? We know Jordan walked away from the relationship, as he's apt to do in circumstances where he thinks he might fail, and we also learn that Ferris isn't too hurt by this, but we never learn anything about the relationship. The driving force behind an on-screen romance is why two people are attracted to each other and would risk their lives to save each other. We're never given that reason. So the romance feels forced (and obviously inevitable, because the hero always gets the girl), and Lively's character thus doesn't fit smoothly into the narrative.

Then there's the extensive backstory, the overuse of CGI, the lack of a strong villain, and a lack of serious drama. My problem with the backstory of the Green Lantern Corps. is similar to my issue with "Thor" in that it's too fantastical and undermines the human spirit by making us not alone in the universe. By setting the story in a universe where there are thousands of alien species, many of whom are much wiser than and peaceful than humanity, it makes our hero and our world insignificant. Who cares if a world filled with belligerent, violent people is destroyed? But if we're alone, or at least don't deal with entire extra terrestrial civilizations (like how the rebooted Batman movies or the X: Men franchise don't), the actions Hal Jordan takes are more meaningful. I know I'm griping more about the comic book's setting, and maybe this works better on the page rather than on the big screen, but this felt like a fundamental problem to me. Batman tries to save his city of Gotham, Spider Man had New York, and Professor X tries to prevent a human-mutant war. But what is Hal Jordan fighting for? Besides Blake Lively, of course.

So when we meet Parallax, a giant, smoking figure who plans on devouring Earth, the threat he poses is muted. First of all, he picks Earth because the Lantern who gave Jordan his ring died there, and that Lantern happened to be the person who imprisoned Parallax. So he picks Earth not because of humanity's significance, but because a dying Lantern happened to land there instead of another populated world. One of the things Jordan tries to do at one point in the movie is convince the Green Lantern Corps. of the goodness of humanity and how our planet deserves to be saved, but this is trivialized by why Parallax chooses to destroy Earth. And just to emphasize for one last time about how we don't know what exactly Jordan's fighting for, we never even learn what city he lives in.

And Hammond? His motivations aren't understood very well. Why does he want to hurt people? Sure, his father is disappointed in him, and he doesn't get the girl, but his descent into villainy isn't done very well. Then there's the CGI. There's a lot of it. A whole lot. Even Hal Jordan's suit is computer-generated. Remember when super hero movies had guys in actual costumes? Those were the days. And couldn't Hammond's appearance be done with makeup rather than CGI? Or any of the humanoid Lanterns? No? Ok then, CGI porn it is. Some people love that stuff, and I don't mind it if it's done well and not overused. But boy, do a lot of movies today feel like they overuse CGI. I don't know why directors are choosing to just do everything digitally rather than attempt to do it practically (which lends a bit more realness), but I hope they remember how movies like "The Matrix" used CGI a lot more sparingly than some movies today, and how well that added to the final product.

I hope I don't sound like I'm ranting, because I did enjoy the movie. It was entertaining enough and if you accept it for what it is, then hopefully you'll enjoy it too. I'd just like to believe that it's possible to make a good superhero movie, and by good I mean from a critical standpoint. I do hope that they make a sequel, so that they have a chance to improve on all of the things I mentioned (and for more Blake Lively). 

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

Rock History In The Millennial Age

I sometimes feel like I was born in the wrong generation. As a millennial, there are times when I bemoan the fact that I didn’t grow up in the 1960s, watching and listening to how music evolved. In many ways, it’s easier now to see how popular music, and in particular rock and roll, grew and evolved during the ‘60s and on into the ‘70s. But it’s also a lot harder too.

It’s impossible to feel the same awe that rock and roll fans must have felt when they listened to Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band for the very first time. On one particular track, “A Day In The Life,” there’s an orchestral swell during the middle of the song. Combining an orchestra with a rock and roll band was unheard of back then. Now? Computer programs allow people to lay down backing tracks to song recordings, effectively dubbing in a fake orchestra. And because The Beatles used an orchestra, everyone followed suit. There’s a good chance, as was in my case, that by the time you first hear “A Day In The Life,” the orchestral swell that blew people away doesn’t blow you away, because you’ve already heard it before.

This, sadly, makes it harder to appreciate what some of these rock and roll pioneers have done. I’m sure everyone has that one song where, when they first heard it, rocked their world. Perhaps it’s a musical style you’ve never heard before, like a heavy metal guitar riff or an orchestral crescendo. But as you get older, this happens less and less. Not only is there so much more music available now than in the past, but people can also listen to it a lot more. MP3 players have revolutionized the way people listen to music. Try going one week, or even one day without your iPod, and you’ll see what I mean.

With all this music available to me, and because I was born about 35 years too late, I’ll never know what it was like to hear that orchestra for the first time. Yes, I can look back and see how we’ve gotten to where we are, but it’s just not organic. There’s no mystery or wonder. I could go on and on, mentioning albums like Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon that, while phenomenal, doesn’t provide the same listening experience as it was in 1973. It’s like I’m listening to them out of context, and there’s nothing I can do about it.

I don’t know if other millennials have this problem, or if people born in the ‘60s had this problem because they couldn’t experience the blues-to-rock transition in the ‘50s. But I do get to experience the thrill of listening to new bands and new albums, such as the Arctic Monkeys, in context today, and that’s ok, even if they aren’t Led Zeppelin.

A Recap Of The GOP Debate In New Hampshire

I watched the Republican debate that took place in New Hampshire last night, mainly because it was either that or watching the Cubs, and at this point listening to Michele Bachmann is less painful. Plus, Ron Paul's running and he's always entertaining at these debates (KILL THE FED! KILL THE FED!). So I figured I'd give you a little recap of what happened by providing some of the transcript from the last night's debate in case you missed it.

John King: Welcome to CNN's Republican presidential debate. I want to start out by giving each candidate half a second to introduce themselves because we only have two whole hours to do this thing and we need to solve every single problem that's ever existed. Rick Santorum, let's start with you.

Rick Santorum: Ihavesevenkids!

John King: Michele Bachmann, your turn. Please be a bit quicker than Mr. Santorum.

Michele Bachmann: Ihavefivekidsandtwentythreefosterchildren!

John King: Newt Gingrich, you're next.

Newt Gingrich: Iwasspeakerofthefreakinghouseandhavekidstoo!

John King: Mr. Mormon, go ahead.

Mitt Romney: Ihavefivekids!

John King: Ok, I get it. You Republicans really like sex. It may not always be with your spouses but...

Newt Gingrich: *cough*

John King: All right, let's move on to the first question, which'll be about the Federal Reserve. Just kidding, Ron Paul! How do you all feel about the economy and President Obama's policies?

Hermain Cain: I owned a pizza business, which makes me totally qualified to answer this question. I'm sure the U.S. works the exact same way. Right now, we're like a cheese pizza that needs some pepperoni and sausage—No, Mr. Weiner, that not what I meant—so we need to find a way to put some toppings on this pizza we call America.

John King: I need a drink.

Mitt Romney: We killed Osama again?

Ron Paul: WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE! WE NEED TO END THE FE—

John King: Thank goodness those tranquilizer darts work so fast. Tim Pawlenty, your thoughts on health care?

Tim Pawlenty: I just want say that Mitt Romney may be the greatest person who ever lived. I'm not even kidding. By the way, who was the idiot that came up with the term "Obamneycare"?

John King: I think I'll speed up the healthcare and immigrant portion of our debate by asking anyone if they DON'T believe that it's ok to kill poor people and illegal immigrants by refusing them medical coverage, if they need it, on the basis that only rich people should be allowed to live. Anyone?

*Crickets*

John King: Ok then. Onto the abortion debate. Does everyone here believe in the sanctity of life, that all life, except after they're born and end up poor, should be protected?

Ron Paul: Makes sense to me.

Mitt Romney: I completely agree.

Tim Pawlenty: Flawless logic.

Rick Santorum: I can't find anything wrong or contradictory with what you just said.

John King: All right, let's take a quick break and then we'll be back to the debate.

Michele Bachmann: I'd like to take this time to announce that I have filed the necessary paperwork and am formally running to lose the Republican nomination to Mitt Romney.

Tim Pawlenty: I have too!

John King: Ok, moving on. Let's talk about separation of church and state. Congressman Paul?

Ron Paul: I've never heard such a thing before in my life.

John King: Have you read the Constitution, sir?

Ron Paul: Next question.

John King: Mr. Gingrich, same ques—and I see you've fallen asleep.

Herman Cain: There is about as much separation between church and state as there is between the cheese and the bread. None.

John King: Let's talk about Muslims. Is there a single candidate here that would include a Muslim in their administration?

Tim Pawlenty: Nope.

Newt Gingrich: Not a chance.

Michele Bachmann: No.

Rick Santorum: Yes. Sike! Absolutely not.

Mitt Romney: You're kidding, right?

Herman Cain: Ha! No way.

Ron Paul: Of course. Not.

John King: Excellent! Great to see the Republican Party be the party of tolerance. Now, let's turn to gay marriage.

Newt Gingrich: I have to agree with Mitt Romney on this. Marriage is between a man and a women. Then another woman. Then another. Then anoth—I mean, never mind.

John King: Last question. Who would you pick to be vice president: Joe Biden or Sarah Palin?

Tim Pawlenty: *long pause* You gotta be kidd—I mean Sarah Palin. Totally. She's absolutely qualified, without question. And by that, I mean please don't ask a question about her qualifications.

John King: Well, I think we've reached the end of this debate.

Mitt Romney: Wait! Have I mentioned that I'm not Sarah Palin? And that I'm handsome? And never, ever had a healthcare plan that was in any way similar to Obamacare? You guys all know I'm the frontrunner, right? Right?! Did I mention that the Book of Mormon won 50 Tonys the other night?


Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

"Super 8" Review

Three-And-A-Half-Stars

First of all, if you're worried about lens flashes, which J.J. Abrams went crazy with in his reboot of "Star Trek," don't be. He's figured out how to tone that particular visual technique down quite a bit in his lastest movie. "Super 8" really is quite a good collaboration between the up-and-coming Abrams and the well-established Steven Spielberg (one of the film's producers), one that combines the latter's story-telling with the former's filmmaking style. It has elements of family and childhood, two staples of Spielberg, interwoven with exciting mystery and suspense, two things that Abrams has done well in the past, and continues to do well in this movie.

In "Super 8," we follow a group of middle schoolers in 1979 rural Ohio who are spending their summer making a zombie movie. Joe Lamb, son of the town's police deputy, along with his friends and a girl named Alice, are shooting their movie on Super 8 film when their filming interrupted by a tremendous train crash. The crash, apparently military-related, is caught on the film the children were using to shoot their movie, and may hold the answer to all the strange things that start to happen after the crash. People start disappearing, car engines and appliances go missing, dogs run away from their homes, and the military shows up to take charge of the situation.

While all this is going on, the subplot focuses on the relationships between both Joe and Alice as well as their fathers. It's only been four months since Joe's mother was killed in an industrial accident, an accident that either could have been avoided or claimed Alice's father instead. This incident causes a great deal of antagonism to sprout up between the two men, which jeopardizes the developing friendship (and possible romance) between Joe and Alice. This subplot is intertwined well with the rest of the story, as it firmly sets up all these characters' motivations, and helps drive the story during the movie's second half.

I don't want to spoil the mystery, but I will say that "Super 8" feels like a flashy, J.J. Abrams-style re-imagination of a classic Spielberg film. And it's a pretty good adaptation. The movie starts out strong and never loses any momentum as the mystery unravels, aided by strong writing, acting, and directing. Joe and his pals are just ordinary kids, making movies in their backyards and beginning to go through adolescence, a staple of many Spielberg films. And while at times they act a bit mature for their age, their strength, again in line with the Spielberg motif of strong, thoughtful kids, is a key component of the movie. It's refreshing to watch a smart action movie that isn't adult heavy, and has children taking the lead in an intelligent way. There's just something less cynical and more heartfelt or genuine about this kind of change-up, and in a lot of ways was reminiscent of "The Goonies."

Besides some CGI overindulgence (the train crash sequence was particularly Michael Bay-esque) and a few one-dimension military personnel, the movie's pretty good. Abrams' style is felt throughout the film, and his particular visual style fits this type of movie: he knows when to go big and when to pull back and not overshadow intimate, serious, or pivotal moments. Striking that balance takes skill, and Abrams is looking more and more like the next big-time director, considering how well his previous projects have been. He also does a good job of taking that classic Spielberg story and giving it his own spin and creative touch, turning it into a unique hybrid of two genius storytellers. Every little plot line and character trait coalesce in the overall story, and in some cases tie everything together.

Rural Ohio, 1979 is another thing that worked well for the film. It hearkens back to some of Steven Spielberg's more celebrated works, and forces people to deal with things and interact with one another face to face, rather than through a cellphone or the Internet. And with most current action movies being either set in the present or period pieces that almost never take place in the 70s or 80s, it's nice to see a return to this decade and its unique, under-appreciated qualities.

But what really makes the movie works are its actors. Joel Courtney, as Joe Lamb, is excellent. His character has to deal with a lot of emotions and personal conflicts, though it does come strikingly close to Eliot from E.T., only with a less stable home life. And Elle Fanning (yes, she's related to Dakota Fanning) puts on a strong performance as Alice, as she too does a great job balance strength with emotional vulnerability. These two really steal the show from the rest of the cast. The other kids in the movie are great as well, replicating the genuine natures of Joe and Alice, as well as giving the supporting cast some depth. Kyle Chandler (Friday Night Lights) is the film's only big name, but doesn't upstage the real stars of the film while playing Joe's dad, who's still recovering from the death of his wife.

The only faults with the movie lie in its depiction of the military and, as I mentioned before, the occasional overindulgence of CGI. Colonel Nelec, the officer in charge of the Air Force division, is the same one-dimensional military antagonist that pops up in various movies and television shows. I wish that filmmakers would take a different approach to the military, but it's almost always the same. Now, I understand that these characters can be limited by the fact that they're just following orders without question, as members of the military are supposed to do, so I think my issue with filmmakers is the mindset they attach to the military regarding the subject of "Super 8"'s mystery. Just once I'd like to see the military take a smarter, less adversarial approach towards these situations in film.

As you might imagine, the collaboration of J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg was quite a success, combining both of their storytelling abilities into one fun-filled ride. I expect Abrams to get better and better as a director, as he's proving to be one of this generation's most visionary filmmakers. I'd like to see him expand his repertoire a bit and move beyond some of the same characteristics that a few of his movies and television shows have, but he certainly knows what he's doing right, as he's shown in "Super 8." It's smart, suspenseful, nostalgic, and hits all the right notes. And it's one of the few movies I've seen recently that has rewatchability, something that's hard to achieve.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

So It Goes

It's only been a few days since I started a summer internship and already I feel like channelling Kurt Vonnegut. Working 9 to 5 for the first time is a bit like being back in high school, yet it somehow doesn't suck. The hours are longer but still less exhausting than sitting through seven classes every day. Not having chemistry every day helps too.

The days don't feel that long, and week goes by pretty fast. Either I'm speeding up or everything in the world except me is slowing down. Back in high school, every day, week, and month was an eternity. I'd keep trudging on by trying to take it a day at a time, especially when it was a Monday. Don't even think about Friday. That's how I got by during the beginning of the week. Just survive another day. Somehow.

College is much freer, a tremendously welcome relief to the monotonous hell that high school was. Difference classes each day, sometimes none on Fridays, and if you're really lucky (I happen to be really lucky), you wind up with a schedule where you only have twice a week. Bliss. If high school is hell, then college has to be some sort of heaven.

But where does that leave the real world? And what is the real world, exactly? Before I got this internship, I never had a job, never worked a day in my life. I had some sort of concept of this so-called "real world," a place where what you did actually mattered, where you can't survive on bullshit like you have all through high school and college (although I do have a theory that success in life is dependent on how expert a bullshitter you are).

No, out there in the real world what you did mattered, and what you did was somehow elevated above anything else you've done. I believed there was some sort of system, that life didn't simply mirror how you got around in high school, that it was some wild, fascinating adventure. I'm not sure I can adequately describe what my expectations were, just that I thought I couldn't possibly comprehend anything until someday when it would just click.

I guess, in a way, this is that click. After working in a real job for a few days, it appears like there's no great secret to the real world, and it's not something that I'd learn after graduating college. Rather, I stay with the same approach I've always had: you do what you can, whatever you can, and when it's done, it's done. So it goes.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy

"X-Men: First Class" Review

Three Stars

When I wrote about "Thor," I talked about the problems action movies face when trying to tell their stories.  They're more concerned about a plot that allows for a good deal of action and visual entertainment than coming up with a good story regardless of circumstances. Now don't get me wrong, "X-Men: First Class" was a good movie, and much of what didn't work about this film had nothing to do with it being an action movie, but it can't escape these inherent limitations of its genre. And it should be noted that "First Class" was certainly a vast improvement over the first X-Men sequel concerning Wolverine, which basically did a terrible job establishing Wolverine's character and backstory.

"First Class" follows the origins of several mutants that we later will see in the first three X-Men films, including Mystique and Beast, but most importantly Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, who later becomes Magneto. The films starts out with Sebastian Shaw, a mutant who can absorb and then emit energy, discovers and tortures a young Erik Lehnsherr in a Nazi concentration camp in order to being out Erik's maximum potential. During the same time period, an adolescent Charles Xavier meets a shapeshifter named Raven (who will later become Mystique) and adopts her into his family, treating her like a younger sister.

Skipping ahead to 1962, Lehnsherr has been systematically hunting down the Nazis who murdered his mother and has his eyes set for Shaw, while Xavier has been finishing his doctorate on genetic mutation in humans in the newly-born atomic age and is recruited by the CIA to help with the Cold War. Lehnsherr's and Xavier's paths cross as Shaw turns out to be working for the Russians, giving the two of them the chance to work together in bringing down Shaw and prevent World War III. Together, Lehnsherr and Xavier begin recruiting mutants to help fight Shaw's own team of mutants, using a newly constructed machine named "Cerebro." Shaw works with the Russians to place nuclear missiles in Cuba, resulting in the Cuban Missile Crisis and a final battle scene in which the future battle lines we've seen in the first three X-Men movies are drawn.

There are a lot of things that work in "First Class" and there are some that don't. All of the major characters, exempt for Shaw for reasons I'll get into shortly, are well defined and do a great job of setting them up down the path of who they become in the first three X-Men movies. Shaw, on the other hand, didn't captive me personally. His villainy is effective for the story's sake, but we never learn where his motivations come from. One of the things that makes Magneto a great villain in the first couple X-Men films comes directly from his journey. His character arc in "First Class" really sells to the audience why he ultimately becomes the antagonist played by Ian McKellen. We never see that with Shaw, and as a result he comes off as mostly one-dimensional.

Lehnsherr's character arc isn't the only one in the movie that's well done. Xavier's evolution (no pun intended) from a student to a teacher and leader shows us how he develops his morals and his conscious as well as his dedication to peace and cooperation. The friendship between Xavier and Lehnsherr, a key dynamic of the previous X-Men films, is established quite well and becomes a rather poignant one, which was no doubt a challenge do to, considering that the audience knows what will happen between the two. Mystique's story was also quite good, though slightly hindered (through no fault of the movie itself) by the fact that the personal conflicts she has in "First Class" are only hinted at in the previous X-Men movies. Her long-lasting friendship with Xavier loses some of its poignancy because we know that nothing ever comes of it in the other movies. But again, that's not the fault of "First Class"because this relationship clearly was never established in the first few movies, as Mystique was much more of a secondary character whose background was never discussed.

The acting in "First Class" was, for the most part, quite good. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are excellent at Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, respectively. McAvoy did a great job projecting the depth and humility that Patrick Stewart first brought to the character. But it was Fassbender who stole the show. He was absolutely fantastic as a deeply wounded and conflicted character whose emotional arc was essentially the core of the movie. But I felt that Jennifer Lawrence, who played Mystique, could have brought a bit more to her character. And I wasn't sold on Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw, but that probably had to do with seeing Kevin Bacon as the main villain in a super hero movie. He felt out of place.

My only major complaints have to do with the music along with a part of the climatic battle sequence. For most of the movie the music felt completely overdone and too melodramatic, which ruined the tone at certain times. I found myself trying not to laugh at how comical and silly of some of the musical swells that were way too much even for the most ridiculous of action movies. My other issue concerns the gratuitous amount of times the film cuts to the commanders of both the American and Russian naval fleets during the final battle. We don't care about these guys or their reactions to what's playing out in front of them, and yet we're forced to endure them over and over again, completely killing the mood every time it happened.

Something else that irked me, though not too much, was the decision to set the action around the Cuban Missile Crisis. Why? Because we know its outcome, even if we don't know how exactly it'll be played out on screen. The threat of a World War III that we know won't come sucks a lot of the drama out of the situation. I like the premiss of placing the action within an actual historical event and solidifying the presence of mutants (a la Forrest Gump) by having them play a pivotal role in it, but in this case there was no suspense. What I did like, though, what was no doubt an homage to "Dr. Strangelove," as the U.S.'s war room in "First Class" clearly mirrored the one in Kubrick's classic film.

All in all, "X-Men: First Class" was a pretty good movie. I quite enjoyed it, which I found to be a pleasant surprise. When I first heard they were making another origins movie after the disastrous Wolverine prequel, I was skeptical of seeing the next sequel. The trailers I saw also left me worried that it would be another terrible super hero movie that was devoted to the action instead of the story. But after hearing about the positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I decided to take a chance on "First Class" and it more than met my initial expectations. And even though it had its weak spots, the more I think and write about it, the more I find that I like it and desire to see the story continued. I might just have to re-watch "X-Men," the movie that appears to have jump-started the trend of comic book adaptations that have been going on now for over a decade.

Until next time, Orange Hat Guy