X-Men: Days of Future Past: Presently The Best Comic Adaptation You Will Have Seen

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" doesn't totally adhere to Chris Claremont's famed story, but it's inspired by it and doesn't do it a disservice. What it does do is it almost erases the stains of "X-Men 3" and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," further invigorates the X-Men movie franchise and lays a solid groundwork for a wider X-Men cinematic universe.

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" is pure fun even while providing glimpses of horrible fates that await the few remaining mutants in the distant future if one thing doesn't get prevented from happening one day in 1973. Inexplicably, director Bryan Singer and his colleagues masterfully weave a complex storyline spanning nearly 50 years, past and future selves of the likes of Charles Xavier, Magneto, Wolverine and Mystique, among others.

Time-travel is, well, a time-worn plot device used in movies for heroic and villainous means. Instead of traversing some kind of wormhole through space and time, current/future Kitty Pryde transfers current/future Wolverine's consciousness to his early 70s self. Once 1973 Wolverine awakens, it's action-filled, brief and hilarious all at once. It almost looks inspired by any number of time-loop-associated flashbacks in "Lost."

The overarching goal for the future remaining X-Men is simple enough an idea: Stop Raven/Mystique from killing - no, not Senator Kelly - but Bolivar Trask, the scientist/industrialist. His death in one timeline convinces the government to expand his Sentinel program to hunt down all mutants, even humans who merely carry a mutant gene but have yet to realize their powers.

The mission is difficult in the early 70s: Wolverine tries to suppress his angry nature or risk his mind being pulled apart in the transference of consciousness that Kitty Pryde holds together in a dark, danger-filled future just barely. Then he must try to convince 1973 Charles Xavier to "fight the future." Problem is, Charles is emotionally broken from Raven's departure, Eric Lehnsherr going down a dark path, and the depletion of his academy by the Vietnam draft. He's using a specialized drug (back then, who wasn't?) to enable him to walk. Otherwise he remains paralyzed. And he's not yet the Charles Xavier we know, mentally superstong. He's connected to all other mutants but it's at times he cannot bare...back then.

When Xavier, who's cared for by a young Hank McCoy/Beast, is finally convinced (and even then he feels some doubt), they must break Magneto out of prison, which happens to be several stories beneath in the Pentagon. He's there because he directed the magic bullet that killed JFK. Or so goes the official government line. Enter Pietro (OK, Peter) Maximoff/Quicksilver, arguably the most fun sequence in the movie. The rest of the flick is not necessarily sheer spectacle, tiresome and wearing out its welcome like with "Man of Steel."

Instead, emotions play a big part in the climax of 1973. But oh my, the "final" battles between the remaining future X-Men and the evolved Sentinels -- the robots that have fully adapted to every mutant power, turning those powers onto the mutants themselves -- is a joy to watch. See Iceman/Bobby Drake creating and surfing upon one of his famed ice bridges. Colossus in his steel rage. Blink creating dimension-warping portals. It's pure comic book teamwork for the remaining X-Men as they try to stave off disaster.

The acting is, well, what you can expect from a comic book ensemble. There's actually not much screen time for Patrick Stewart or Ian McKellen in such a busy flick, but at this point in the X-Men cinematic universe, there doesn't need to be. Hugh Jackman has fun again as Wolverine, and James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender fully make young Xavier and Lehnsherr their own. Jennifer Lawrence? I am in love with her, which would probably make Emma Stone jealous. At one moment, her Raven/Mystique is laser focused on doing what it takes to reach and kill Trask. At another moment, she's conflicted.

Halle Berry RECEIVES a big check for her "portrayal" as Storm. Does she EARN it? Nah. Again, it's not necessary at this point. But oof, Evan Peters as Quicksilver. He's a revelation. He wrapped up all his characters from "American Horror Story," mashed them up with a liberal dose of cockiness (why shouldn't he be?) and I want him to be Quicksilver in the expanded X-Men cinematic universe. And yes, there's a post-end credits scene and it sets up nicely for what lies ahead.

So many X-Men characters from the previous films, all in one masterstroke of a new movie, even in a cameo...makes me feel giddy. Excited again for X-Men movies. It's busy but feels effortless. It nearly corrects all that went wrong in X3 and Origins:Wolverine and shows there's much more greatness that's coming up in X-Men on the big screen. See? Bryan Singer has some decent stuff as director leftover after "Superman Returns" and "Jack the Giant Slayer."

Let Us Be Thankful "Godzilla" Is Like "Godzilla" and Not Like "Godzilla"

The reviews of "Godzilla" (aka 2014) on Ain't It Cool News best sum up my feelings. This movie is better the old-fashioned way, a slow burn to the full reveal. Sure, Roland Emmerich tried the same approach in "Godzilla" (aka 1998), but once we see his monster and his personality, it's so far removed from what we've come to expect, what we remember from the old "Godzilla," it's disappointing and troubling on every level.

With "Godzilla" (2014), director Gareth Edwards positions the audience in the best way possible to await all that we know the mutant monster will bring to the table. It's an origin movie. It's not supposed to be filled with behemoth monsters fighting or stomping cities into smithereens from wire to wire. Wait until the sequel.

For some, characters and storyline are a disappointment in "Godzilla" (2014). Since when did we as audiences, and since when did the moviemakers, really worry about the depth of actors, plot and script in Godzilla...or any monster flick? Sure, there's no Oscar-worthy performances in "Godzilla" (2014). That wasn't in the works. Perhaps Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe bring the most passion of any of the main actors. Alas, they're just in supporting roles while Aaron Taylor-Johnson (who was so good in the "Kick-Ass" films) is our Tom Cruise from "War of the Worlds." Wherever he ends up or wherever he puts himself, crap happens. (His character, named Brody, definitely scores some Spielbergian points with me.) Not much can be said for Elizabeth Olsen's character (you know, the Olsen sister who can actually act), but again, that's to be expected.

In most monster movies...and it's no different with "Godzilla" (pick your decade)...the characters react. They run, they hide, they scream, they cry, they die. That's what happens when strange things unfold, in this case, stories-tall beasts battle in metropolitan areas. I am there to see Godzilla, no longer a guy in a rubber suit stepping onto miniature model cities. I'm there to hear his iconic roar. I'm there to see Godzilla literally warm up to breathe fire, or something like it, onto attacking armies, towns and other monsters. (Here, the two MUTOs Godzilla 2014 fought were like hot-to-trot hybrids of Mothra and the Cloverfield critter.) I'm there to see humanity truly humbled by this natural anomaly that we've come to know as Gojira.

With that, I was giddy. It felt like I was rewatching the old Godzilla flicks from the 50s through the 70s. Yes, even the purely bad ones with his dopey-looking son, Jet Jaguar, Mechagodzilla, the miniature 12-inch twins, the smog monster. It made my inner child go crazy and was nostalgic. Heck, I've got a little plastic toy model of him someplace. Sure, Godzilla (2014) didn't do a happy dance, but he kicked some MUTO butt. This "Godzilla" looks as if he's visited one too many taquerias. No matter. This "Godzilla" (2014) is filled with wonderful images and sounds, many of which harken back to the older films.  Like last year's "Pacific Rim," it's fun. It is darker than "Pacific Rim," and while we may have felt more for human characters in monster flicks such as "Jurassic Park," the star we go to see fills space so amazingly.

There's a sequel in the works, maybe two. Perhaps Gamera, or a version thereof, will show up. In the end, it's all about Godzilla smashing things up real good.

Amazing Spider-Man 2: So Much to Do and Say, Not Much to Really Love

It's a classic case: I want to truly love a comic book movie such as "The Amazing Spider-man 2." It's good. It's enjoyable. But I'm not hankering to rush to see it again. Running almost two and a half hours, "The Amazing Spider-man 2" is filled with exciting action sequences and impressive special effects. But the storylines are contrived, characterizations are rush, and practically everything feels like it's truncated in preparation for what lies ahead in The Amazing Spider-man movie franchise.

That's because Part 2 is deliberately stuffed with, well, stuff. Sony has committed to more Spider-man flicks and lots of ground to cover. Heck, secondary characters and images (eggs, if you will) seen in the sequel's climax and in the end credits clearly set up a universe in which we could see the Sinister Six.

In the meantime, we see Max Dillon, played by Jamie Foxx, turn into Electro in a rather unoriginal, uninspired way. It's not Foxx. He does well in portraying the lead villain, but Dillon/Electro's conversion is fast and a little lame, given Dillon's connection to Oscorp.

Ah yes, Oscorp, where we many more connections made in this rushed, overriding storyline. The link with Peter Parker's parents, one of many subplots in the movie. Here, Peter -- played again by Andrew Garfield in an exemplary manner-- goes full-on detective, connecting dots to discover the truth about his parents -- their scientific research and their fate. The reveals here are a tad disappointing to say the least.

Back at supposedly big bad mega-corporation Oscorp, we see a huge missed opportunity: Chris Cooper could have made a fantastic Norman Osborn to rival that of Willem Dafoe's portrayal in the Sam Raimi versions of Spider-man. Yet, Cooper's Norman is reduced considerably. He is the original, most well known Green Goblin.

Harry Osborn takes on the title of actual Green Goblin in this movie, rather late and in a convoluted manner. Don't get me wrong. Dane DeHaan had a polarizing presence in the movie "Chronicle," which I enjoyed, and in "The Amazing Spider-man 2," he seems well suited as Harry Osborn, the heir to the Oscorp empire. But his introduction and development is relatively brief and I almost don't care for it.

It's said that Harry is an old friend of Peter's, but the way director Marc Webb's Spider-man universe is set up, it doesn't seem like such a friendship genuinely exists. You could feel/see that in Raimi's Spider-man films, the dynamic between James Franco and Tobey Maguire. When DeHaan finally appears as Green Goblin, created that way by a serum, he's almost over the top in his performance. Again, not DeHaan's fault. He gets the short end of the stick here, but yes, this is a transitional sequel...meant to serve for more introductions, and sure enough we'll see more Harry Osborn/Green Goblin in "The Amazing Spider-man" cinematic universe.

At last there's Aleksei Sytsevich, or Rhino, played all too briefly yet with glee by Paul Giamatti. His appearances, exciting as they are, literally bookend the film. Giamatti is on record, saying Rhino has been one of his favorite Spider-man villains, and he'll get more chances to be Rhino in "The Amazing Spider-man" cinematic universe. Now, Rhino with automatic guns and missile launchers? That takes more getting used to.

Ultimately, what works for me in the sequel? Garfield as Spider-man/Pete and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. Webb and the writing teams give Garfield to insert his charm and wit into the Spidey we all know and love. Sure, he's a bit mopey and constantly wondering about trying to keep from harm's way those he cares about the most. But Peter Parker loves being Spider-man. It's fun. He loves helping people and carries a bit of a cocky attitude. That is on full display in this movie.

There's also no denying the chemistry between Garfield and Stone. (Of course, in my eyes, Stone can do absolute no wrong on the big screen. I'd have her babies if I could.) Stone inserts more confidence into Gwen this time around. Webb works best when it comes to romance, or the building up or collapse of it all. He demonstrated that clearly in "500 Days of Summer." The interaction between Stone's Gwen and Garfield's Peter demands your attention. Sometimes it brings a smile to your face, other times it's depressing. Their shared emotions run the gamut on screen.

In comic book movies these days, some editions are designed to give full introductions to allow for the expansion of crucial characterizations and storylines for upcoming sequels. I understand that. But it takes true talent to NOT make a film feel/look so hurried of saddled with subplots. This isn't Raimi "Spider-man 3" bad. Far from it. Webb and his team have learned from any mistakes Raimi and his team made from the previous movies and are doing their best to improve upon them. Still, "The Amazing Spider-man 2" falls short of amazing.