Right as rainy

… is perhaps not the best way to restart this blog after almost 3 months. But it’s the best way I can think of right now So let’s skip past the formalities and go straight ahead. I’ve watched four movies on the big screen in one week, I might as well write something about them.

Not in order of preference, but simply in the order I watched them – X-Men Origins: Wolverine is not a sequel to “The Last Stand” – but you can’t really call it a reload either. The first of three rumoured movies that will focus on the history of specific characters from the X-Men universe, this one shows us the becoming of – you guessed it, what was the giveaway? – Wolverine. It is somewhat in line with a general trend in the film industry during the last few year. Instead of tacking one sequel onto the next, filmmakers start exploring reloads, reboots and beginnings of their characters and franchises. Star Wars, James Bond, Batman… And often enough the question ‘How did it all start?’ is answered in a very entertaining way.
Hugh Jackman reprises his role as Logan, who is later to become Wolverine, with Liev Schreiber coming in as his brother Victor Creed, later known as Sabertooth. The opening credits are among the most artistic seen in a long time – a kind of fast-forward montage tells the story of the two brothers up to the present day. During the next two hours, we learn how Logan got his name, we meet a few other X-Men who hadn’t made it to the big screen int he three predecessor movies, and finally we close the circle back to the first X-Men Movie, learning why Logan is who he is, a solitary soul searching for his own identity and past.
It is a bit of a shame that certain aspects of Wolverine’s history never made it into the main films. But then again, it would probably have shifted the focus too much. The X-Men movies were about the common struggle, about questions of tolerance, humanity and morality. Which is why the Origins idea is ever so fitting, it answers questions left unanswered at the end of “The Last Stand”. And it does so in a magnificent way. Never mind the sometimes sub-par quality of the CGI and Special Effects, never mind Danny Huston, whose interpretation of Colonel Stryker is at no point as classy as his counterpart Brian Cox in X2, never mind the somewhat predictable twist surrounding Kayla Silverfox (well played by Lynn Collins). The story is told with passion and in a good pace, the dynamics between Logan and Victor are captivating (both Jackman and Schreiber are class acts by any one’s standards), and with all the seriousness brought up by the story, there is always space for some dry humour and small yet unexpected twists. Highly enjoyable.

From the mutant world to the real world – or so would Dan Brown like to make us believe. Angels & Demons is another take at one of his books. One might muse that this movie is riding on the wave of controversy that “The Da Vinci Code” created in both its book and movie incarnations, it would not be accurate, as the book “Angels & Demons” was written first.
Whatever convinced director Ron Howard and screenwriters David Koepp and Akiva Goldsman to first bring “The Da Vinci Code” onto the big screen, after watching this one I am not so convinced it was a good idea. That movie was lacking in a lot of aspects. The story lacked plausibility, and all the plays on symbols and their interpretations seemed a bit too forced for my taste. “Angels & Demons does a somewhat better job, although it still contains a lot of speculation and thumb sucks. But be that as it may, the book was a compelling, enjoyable read more so than its predecessor, and that reflects in the big screen conversion. The story has been somewhat streamlined, with a lot of material altered or left out, to avoid the complexity of the book. It is told with a good amount of pace, although the constant usage of the Steadicam becomes a bit unnerving. And the biggest flaw of both movies is Tom Hanks himself. Don’t get me wrong, he is an absolutely classy actor – but he just does not fit the role of Robert Langdon, he is too old and way too serious for it. The character requires someone younger, with less of a frown and more suitability for the pace the movie is setting. At the bottom line, “Angels & Demons” is good for two hours of  entertainment at the cinema, but it won’t go down in movie history.

The same can be said about Terminator: Salvation, which I pretty much only watched because of Christian Bale being in the lead role. He is definitely one of the up-and-comings, with a backlog of leading roles that would make more seasoned actors jealous. “Equilibrium”, “The Prestige”, and not to forget the last two Batman movies. The new installment in the Terminator series tells the story of an adult John Connor in a last-ditch effort to topple the rule of the machines, which have taken over the world. Now I am certainly not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to the Terminator universe, as I have skipped the first three movies and most of the recent TV series. So I went in there with a clean slate, if you so will. “Salvation” turned out to be what the masses want – a straightforward action flick with short, catchy dialogue, tons of explosions and special effects, and not a lot to think about. There is a message in there somewhere, and it is a good one. But only if you’re inclined to look for it, which by an optimistic guesstimate applies to perhaps 5% of the people watching it. The rest could most likely not be bothered at all. And while that is a bit of a shame, there are movies out there which are more suited to carry important messages, and which target an audience that is more likely to look for them.

Which brings us to State Of Play, the last entry in this little roundup of the last few weeks. This is a prime example for how to make an old fashioned style thriller in a way that does not make it look old fashioned. Sporting a brilliant cast made up of Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams and Helen Mirren in the leads, and building a tense story up to a thrilling finale, this film knows how to satisfy. It starts simple, two men being shot on the open street, and a young woman dying in a subway station. How this ties into a congressman’s (Affleck) life and draws two reporters with seemingly opposing objectives into the drama (Crowe and McAdams), well, I won’t give it away here. The story unfolds slowly, with small pieces being added to the puzzle in a way that is always comprehensive, and mounts the tension almost unnoticeably – until you move to the edge of your seat without even realizing it. Twists in the story are sudden and unpredictable. And pleasantly enough, the style is far away from the hectic, 4-second-average-cut-length handycam style of today. Long, relaxed and focused shots and a minimum of special effects leave the poweer of the images and motifs fully in the hands of the director and the actors. To top it off, it asks a lot of important questions with regards to ethics and morality – on a corporate and political as well as journalist level. In this genre, it is important to do that, and also make clear that when you move on difficult territory, everything has consequences, intended or unintended. “State Of Play” delivers with class and style and is certainly one of the more important movies released in the current year.