Professor X, or rejected member of Creedence Clearwater Revival? Image via Total Film

“Must be some kind of…hot tub time machine.”

Most prequels are not necessary, because a lot of stories are a lot better if you know a lot less about the characters and the world. As Patton Oswalt said, “I don’t want to know where the stuff I love comes from. I want to love the stuff that I love.”

Enter X-Men: Days of Future Past, a cross between a sequel and a prequel that justifies its existence by being the most consistently entertaining blockbuster released so far this summer. It succeeds in bringing back the feel of the original X-Men movies while expanding the universe greatly. I have always been a big fan of X-Men, partly because its built-in allegory works so well. It is one of the darkest of all superhero stories yet as a movie franchise, it does not try too hard to be gritty.

Days of Future Past is a prequel and a sequel that’s also a sequel to the prequel called First Class. That sums up just how wildly confusing franchise storytelling has become. Days of Future Past does right where First Class went wrong. By not truly introducing the most interesting conflict and character developments until the very end, First Class suffered from the same problems that plague most prequels. However, the whole of Days of Future Past, not just the last ten minutes, are interesting.

As the title might suggest, Days of Future Past is set in both the past and the future. In the future, mutants have been nearly completely wiped out thanks to Sentinels, which are robots that can compete with mutant powers. In the future, mutants don’t fight each other anymore, because everyone is just fighting to stay alive. Like humans, mutants will also put aside their differences in the face of a bigger problem. In the future, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is sent back into the past to stop the war from happening. Wolverine is sent back to the 1970s, where he has his past body, but his future consciousness. Basically, Wolverine has to follow the same rules that John Cusack has to follow in Hot Tub Time Machine.

Nobody gives the X-Men movies enough credit for gathering some incredibly solid ensembles. A movie that gives us both Michael Fassbender and Ian McKellen playing the same character should be celebrated. Days of Future Past sees the return of some great X-Men from past movies, but also introduces some great new characters. Peter Dinklage steps out of Tyrion Lannister’s armor for long enough to portray Dr. Bolivar Trask, the scientist who designed the Sentinels.

Days of Future Past seems to have a really strong understanding of each mutant’s place in this universe. For instance, Days of Future Past pulls an Iron Man 3 by taking away one of its heroes’ powers. Here, it is Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) who is suddenly left without his ability to control people’s minds. Without this power, we see the terrible weight one must carry when they can read and control everybody’s thoughts. Meanwhile, we get more of a glimpse of Mystique’s (Jennifer Lawrence) backstory as well as her importance in the world of the X-Men. Days of Future Past proves its worth as a sort-of-prequel by giving backstory to characters we probably didn’t know could be so interesting.

The latest X-Men installment sees Bryan Singer reclaim the director’s chair from the likes of Matthew Vaughn and Brett Ratner. Some parts of Days of Future Past are so good that they made me feel like a kid again, wide-eyed and ready to become obsessed with X-Men and X2. The best scene in the movie shows the world through the eyes of Quicksilver (Evan Peters), who is known for his super speed. It is funny and even a little bit awe-inspiring. I will not spoil it much more, but I will say that it literally looks like a comic book come to life. More comic book movies should aspire to look exactly like this one scene.

Sure, Days of Future Past is not without its problems. While it does not take too much time explaining the rules of the world, the time travel becomes a little bit too convoluted in just a few instances. Sometimes, it relies a little too heavily on action movie cliches. If you don’t believe me, just look at the tracking shot of a bunch of guys sitting at a table and looking at a map in order to plan a heist. Sometimes, some cliches are needed though, and they just look kind of quaint just as long as the whole plot isn’t centered around them. Days of Future Past is the film I didn’t realize would cure my cynicism, because it gave me back at least some faith in big budget filmmaking. It might not be as smart as it thinks it is, but there’s no harm in encouraging more movies that at least have a single thought about topics as big as Civil Rights and the implications of time travel.

Brain Farts From The Edge (SPOILERS)

• If we are on the topic of Hot Tub Time Machine, I could just hear “Once in a Lifetime” by The Talking Heads playing as Wolverine walked back into Xavier Academy in the present day.
• Speaking of which, Hot Tub Time Machine is a great movie that deserves more respect than it gets.
• This movie made the 70s look cool.
• Some people don’t like it, but I enjoy alternate looks at well known historical events. I like how they fit Magneto into the JFK assassination.
• I loved the Zapruder-type footage they showed as onlookers filmed the events happening in Paris.
• Days of Future Past explores a lot of the same themes as First Class, yet somehow manages to explore them in a much more complicated and interesting way. It also carries a much bigger emotional impact. I will attribute that once again to character development that doesn’t just occur in the last ten minutes.
• Now, I think it’s time to go dust off those old X-Men comics hiding in my attic.

Patricia Arquette in overalls. Filed Under: 1990s

Ever since I first started to learn about film, I have always been fascinated by directorial style. Bad directors are bad because they have no distinct style. They are fine with being derivative of their time. Good directors think ahead, follow patterns, and ultimately evolve.

This year’s crop of directors nominated for Oscars are as talented as they are diverse. Some are old pros, and some are just breaking out. Some are deeply funny, and others are deeply serious. Looking at their past works is the best way to understand what they are doing in the present.

I (with the help of a friend, more on that after the jump) have gone through the careers of all five of this year’s Oscar nominated directors. I didn’t necessarily chose their best works, but rather I chose the ones you might not have seen (because honestly, you don’t need me to know that “Raging Bull” is great), or the one’s that exemplify each director in an interesting way. Without further adieu, here is my list of five other great movies from this year’s Oscar Nominated directors:

Note: I have not seen any other Steve McQueen film besides “12 Years a Slave.” This posed a big problem. Luckily, friend of the blog, and noted Michael Fassbender Historian Sammy Warshaw was here to save the day. He guest writes the section about “Shame.”

Alfonso Cuaron: Children of Men (2006)

Early in his career, Alfonso Cuaron was often grouped together with an emerging wave of Mexican filmmakers that included Guillermo del Toro and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. It is not because their films share a lot in common, but rather because all three of them are Mexican. You see, America is kind of racist.

Anyway, the year 2006 was a banner year for all three of them. Del Toro had “Pan’s Labyrinth,” Inarritu had “Babel,” and Cuaron had “Children of Men.” To this day, “Children of Men” is still the gold standard for cinematic dystopias. At a time when nauseating quick cuts were typical in most action films, Cuaron went against the grain and used mesmerizing continuous takes. The risk he took paid off, and with it he created two of the greatest chase scenes you’ll ever see. They are effective because they just don’t stop, and they allow the audience to see every stumble and every blow. It’s mesmerizing. And while other dystopias might tend towards hoverboards and white jump suits, the futuristic England of “Children of Men” looks more like a war-torn version of the present. “Children of Men” is one of the most visually complex films I have ever seen. Images from it evoke everything from the Warsaw Ghetto to Guantanamo Bay, thus making it a timeless political allegory.

While “Children of Men” is the definition of bleak, it is also ultimately hopeful. It shows Cuaron’s worldview: even when there is sadness and killing, humanity can ultimately still be a beautiful thing. Also, this is just one of the tensest action films ever made. The fact that the same man made both “Children of Men” and “Gravity” is astounding.

Steve McQueen: Shame (2011)

There’s something about the over-educated British intellectual that has irked me ever since I saw my first Merchant Ivory film. For practically the entirety of my first (and only) viewing of “Howard’s End,” I found myself cringing at the idea that somewhere on this earth; a stilton-loving, Earl Grey guzzling, 50-something-year-old bloke was marveling at his own artistic transcendence. Gross.

So, it only makes sense that I initially found myself resisting the work of Steve McQueen before I really even gave it a fair chance. That’s what makes his 2011 film “Shame” all the more admirable and ultimately impressive. Sure, if you dig deep enough into the film’s texture, you’re obviously going to find your standard beard stroking moments of existential expressionism (what do you expect), not to mention a few ubiquitous “film school ready” extended tracking shots. That being said, I find McQueen’s films crucially underrated in that they still manage to generate a satisfying viewing experience. It’s not like McQueen is just a fat Lee Daniels either, people.

When we see the great Assbender cranking a quick one out in the men’s stall on his work break, you’re not getting an avant-garde, “let’s reveal his inner demons” type of filmmaking. At least it doesn’t feel like it. “Shame” and “12 Years a Slave” are both rare breeds; they’re able to stay real and cinematic at the same time. McQueen isn’t the black jesus, but at least he’s not trying to be. What he is, however, is one of the few remaining true auteurs of the medium, and we can only pray that his apparent self-seriousness doesn’t eventually get the best of him. Please Hollywood, if you take McQueen from us, and we assume you will after “12 Years a Slave” wins the Oscar, at least let him keep the jerk-off scenes. -Sammy Warshaw/Shia Labeouf

David O. Russell: Flirting with Disaster (1996)

David O. Russell has been entertaining some people and pissing off others since early in his career. He has always been in the business of directing neurotic screwball comedies, which makes for some very broad characters. Russell doesn’t piss me off, as the way he utilizes all of his characters in response to the world that he puts them in is almost always near perfect.

For anybody looking for cross country road trips and stereotypical New York Jews complaining, “Flirting with Disaster” is the answer to all your prayers. In it, Ben Stiller plays Mel, a new father who was adopted as a child and now wants to find his biological parents. Along the way, a series of mishaps allow him to take in a sampling of some of America’s finest weirdos. The film fires on all cylinders while simultaneously being painful to watch. But it’s the good kind of painful, the kind that you fight through because you just want to see how everything won’t work out. More importantly though, Alan Alda and Lily Tomlin play a couple of aging, married hippies. Imagine how perfect that sounds, then think a little harder.

“Flirting with Disaster” is all about the shit hitting the fan. David O. Russell’s greatest talent is how good he is under stress, and the more insane his films get, the more he is able to wrest control. “Flirting with Disaster” is a great example of early David O. Russell, before his more polished career of today.

Martin Scorsese: The King of Comedy (1983)

People seemed surprised at how funny “The Wolf of Wall Street” is. However, “Wolf” is not Scorsese’s first brush with comedy. The vastly underrated “The King of Comedy” is both against type for Scorsese and exactly the kind of film we have come to expect of him.

“The King of Comedy” is about as black as black comedies get. Robert DeNiro plays Rupert Pupkin (a name that is hard to forget), a wannabe comedian who lives in his mom’s basement and dreams of his big TV debut. Finding that no one will give him five minutes, he decides to kidnap his favorite talk show host (Jerry Lewis) in the misguided hopes of finally getting his first shot. The only real difference between Rupert Pupkin and Travis Bickle is that Pupkin doesn’t have PTSD. Scorsese knows how to make society’s shadow figures so endlessly compelling.

Then, “The King of Comedy” ends in the kind of way that is only happy if you happen to be as insane as the character. Nobody employs the ironic ending like Scorsese does. “The King of Comedy,” like Scorsese’s best films, turns the camera on the audience. The way you react to the characters can tell you a lot about who you are as a person.

Alexander Payne: Election (1999)

Most people will claim that “Sideways” is Alexander Payne’s best film. Don’t get me wrong, I like wine, and I like white people, but the two of  them together can often be kind of boring. “Election” is the furthest thing from that. Long before “Nebraska,” Alexander Payne has been ripping Middle America a new one. It was a little more sincere in “Nebraska.” “Election,” though, is straight up mean. I mean that as a compliment.

The film is mean from its very premise: a high school teacher (Matthew Broderick) tries to stop know-it-all Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon) from winning class president. Broderick is perfectly cast as the anti-Ferris Bueller, while Witherspoon gives new meaning to the phrase “fuck me, please.”

“Election” shows a very different Alexander Payne. This is not the same man who directed “The Descendants.” Today, he  lets scenes play out. In “Election,” he butts in as much as possible with hilarious freeze frames and meandering streams of consciousness. His meanness is okay, though, as Payne spreads the hate around. And hey, at least everybody gets a semi-happy ending, bee stings and all. Even for a movie that is often mean-spirited, I don’t think I can run out of nice things to say about “Election.”