Well, it's been a few days since I've seen the newest X-Men movie so I feel I've had enough time to mull it over during my breaks of hideous sickness. Being bed-ridden does that - gives you time to think. Not only about a movie you saw a few weeks ago but how horrible you feel. Seriously. Gross.

Anyhow, this review contains spoilers so, as always, proceed with caution.

As a whole, I was sort of let down after exiting the theatre. The plot, while compelling and action-packed, lacked a certain something that made the other films so great (let's not count X3, just for arguments sake). I think it started with my brother pointing out the poster on our arrival to the theatre (see right). Mystique and Wolverine are at the forefront, followed by a young Professor X, Storm, etc. It's no coincidence that the two frontrunners are X-Men's darling and Hollywood's most in-demand actress. While I am not diminishing each actor's talent or their ability to hold the lead role in a film, I merely suggest that perhaps too much attention was paid to them - to the point of negating the other character's presence at all. For me, I was most excited to see the past and future Magneto and Professor X crossing paths. The only glimpse we got into that possibility was a two minute heart-to-heart, which was all sorts of amazing, but a little underwhelming after it was over.

I believe this film made many promises about the crossover without following through with the results. If they would have marketed it differently, maybe I would have gone in with different expectations. As it is, I went in expecting an epic time-battle with all of my favorite Marvel nomads banding together to defeat a mutual enemy. Instead, I got an unpredictable Erik screwing things up for everyone. Again. I also got an vengeance-driven Mystique and drug-addicted Charles (who had an underlying sexual tension that I actually kind of enjoyed?). While these were formulae for a great story-arch, I completely discarded them because of my disappointment about the latter issue. Call me picky but I like me some time-travelling sci-fi and I thought X-Men was the perfect franchise to use it. I just wish they exploited the surefire formula for success more, well, successfully.

On the positive side, I loved Peter Dinklage's role in the film. He was just brilliant as an ignorant scientist. That man can do no wrong in my eyes. I also loved how all of the characters were very true to themselves - yes, even stupid Erik with his stupid mood swings. Mystique was a bit harder for me to wrap my head around. She arguably has gone through the most changes since we last saw her in First Class. I only wish we knew what kind of changes. We know that Erik was framed for the JFK murder and left his followers to their own devices. Now Mystique is pissed at him, and they share an intimate moment in a phone booth (or something), hinting of a possible romantic past. Since it's never fully explained, I can't see how Erik has no problem going after Raven nor why Raven hates Erik. I can only guess. I suppose as long as we get that sequel, I shouldn't complain.

As hinted by the last scene at the end of the credits (a la Marvel predictability), the new villain was introduced: Apocalypse. It was more of an introduction of his powers and his history, but still made me curious and excited about the new installment of the series.

I'm going against the grain on this one and giving Days of Future Past a 3.5/5. I'm sure the score would be higher if the film came through on the trailer's promises. While films don't always have a tendency not to do that, I expected more of X-Men and Marvel in general. Come on guys, get your shit together.

I was going to post this last night after I got back from the movie to make my deadline but returned late and felt like a review written while I was half-awake wouldn't be one worth reading. It would have been a disaster. A funny disaster, probably. But still a disaster.

Recently, Divergent and The Fault in Our Stars actress Shailene Woodley has been under fire for her comments about feminism to Time. When asked if she considered herself a feminist, she answered:

No because I love men, and I think the idea of 'raise women to power, take the men away from the power' is never going to work out because you need balance

After the interview surfaced, feminist-friendly websites like Tumblr blew up with comments shaming Woodley. Following their stead were sites such as the Huffington Post and Jezebel, writing the actress off as ignorant and a shining example of what is wrong with the image of feminism. According to them, what she described is feminism and the fact that she doesn't consider herself a feminist is an insult to the term and society. Woodley instead labels herself as a believer of "sisterhood."

Not many have jumped to Woodley's defense but I would sure like to try. It is my belief that Woodley was a victim of the press and her statement, however true or not, is an overblown opinion that only received this outcry in result of a targeted article.

Feminism is a delicate subject, mostly because of the negative images that many still associate with it. In its early stages, feminism was denounced by right-wing parties during the late-19th and early-20th century. Many left-wingers supported these women but they were still seen as revolutionary in their own right. After receiving the right to vote, the feminist movement continued to move forward with calls for other rights such as equal pay. There were a few extreme cases of violence to achieve this goal and they did more to set the movement back than move it forward. In the 60's, the infamous "burning bras" image started with a group of protesters in Europe. These few extreme occurrences were enough to denounce the movement for many. Today, the images still stick and feminists are widely regarded as bra-burning, violent, and greedy. Their agenda is spun to be an open attack against men rather than what it really is - a call for equality. There will always be extreme branches of any organization, but as a whole feminists want equality - not a power-shift. Because of the tendency of the media to only report on shock-value news, the message has somehow been lost. While it is up to a person to label themselves whatever they please, a lack of information on labels such as feminism can prevent an "accurate" stance.

Hollywood can roughly be labeled as a liberal industry. Many celebrities are activists in the gay rights movement, charity for third world countries, and feminism (among others). When a celeb comes out as against any of the "normal" views of the industry, there's bound to be uproar. After a few choice comments, Kirsten Dunst was labeled as an anti-feminist and went under similar scrutiny as Woodley earlier this year.

The problem is not with Miss Woodley, the problem is with society and the media. If you read the entire article, it is framed to make her sound like an ignorant young starlet. An example can be seen with her mention of The Other Women, a movie she mistakenly labeled as being directed by Judd Apatow. They seem to have quoted her verbatim, with her direct statement being "There's that new Judd Apatow movie [sic] movie coming out, The Other Women, and that looks really good because I think it shows women coming together and supporting each other..." Later, they made the point of clarifying:

Not everyone agrees The Other Women (which was not directed by Judd Apatow) is so empowering

They used the [sic] marking (meaning, roughly, "this is what they actually said") in a negative way, making it blatantly obvious that she made a mistake and using it against her argument against feminism. The entire article is a subtle attack against Woodley and she is merely a victim. I cannot say whether or not this frame affected how others read it, but it sure stuck out to me.

The point of the matter is that Woodley has the right to say whatever she likes, whenever she likes - just like any other person. The only difference is that her opinion is broadcast for everyone to see. Especially now, in what can only be described as the taking-off of her career, whatever she says will be scrutinized. No doubt she had at least a dozen people telling her what to say and when to say it. That's a lot of pressure for anyone to feel. While her statement can be read as ignorant, if one looks into the source of her statements, they can see the larger problem. Miss Woodley's words were framed in a negative article, one that used her as a puppet to expose the taboo of feminism and how anyone labeling themselves as anti-feminist is wrong and misinformed. It's not fair to Miss Woodley nor to the public to put the blame on one person and use them as the face of ignorance. The face of ignorance is in the mirror, more times than not, and the only one that can prevent it is you.

WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR BOTH THE BOOK AND MOVIE VERSIONS OF DIVERGENT

This weekend, I finally got the chance to watch Divergent for the first time in theatres. I read the book last summer but put off watching the movie 1) because I was very busy at the time it came out and 2) I'm still mad about the ending of Allegiant so I was kind of boycotting it. Maybe.

Divergent premiered with many eyes watching and waiting to see if it would become the latest casualty in the search for the next YA hit franchise. While I believe these expectations to be "The Next Hunger Games" are unfair and unjust to YA books everywhere, they unfortunately make a difference in box office terms. Many great YA series have been panned because of their "unsuccessful" adaptations and there was debate whether or not Veronica Roth's best-selling series would be among them. Turns out Divergent had just the right ingredients to draw in a large audience and can be deemed a success in its own right.

I went into the theatre with dilapidated complacency, mostly brought on by the amount of time I waited to watch it. With this neutral outlook, I was able to sit back and actually watch the movie instead of picking it apart like I usually do with book-to-movie adaptations. Plus, it helped that I didn't reread the book right before watching the film. So my outlook is one of whom that is familiar with the book but doesn't have it committed to memory.

Honestly, I really did like it. With all thoughts of Allegiant out of my head, I looked at Divergent as it's own story - which it is, really. It's the beginning to a revolution, as so many YA dystopian stories are nowadays. The film kept the momentum and tone I loved about the book: something both daunting and hopeful. The audience developed with Tris through her trials and triumphs. I did, however, notice a lot violence from the Dauntless initiation period cut down in regards to one-on-one combat and training. Specifically, with the character of Peter. In the books, Peter is a sociopath and it's no secret. In the movie, he's just a bully. While his fight scene with Tris was kept in and added to his asshole-image, the audience only sees him as a boy making all the wrong choices - which comes to fruition in the final battle sequence (SPOILERS. Highlight white space to reveal) when Peter is standing guard without the influence of the mind control serum. A very disturbing scene involving a knife was not included, which would have made Peter a contestable villain. I'm not quite sure what the angle of this was - perhaps to make Peter more sympathetic as a character? Maybe to portray Kate Winslet's character, Janine, as the main antagonist? Regardless, I'm eager to see what role he'll be playing in the future films.

Also noticeably absent was the role of Uriel, another one of Tris's friends in the Dauntless initiate class. His positive and flirtatious attitude would have been a welcome reprieve from the dark overtones of the film. The whole Tris/Al relationship was also understated. While Al's romantic feelings were unrequited in the books, I believe they were important in his overall motivation for (SPOILERS) the cliff scene and his eventual suicide. While it was clear that he was a weak-minded individual, his romantic feelings also added to Tris's emotional distance and how Four was the one to help soften that disposition.

While the movie did not follow the book verbatim, I still think it was a wonderful adaptation. It helped me remember what I loved about the first book in Roth's series. The Divergent trilogy as a movie franchise looks to be in good shape, if it's gross income thus far is any attestment. The sequel has already begun filming. While I have mixed feelings about the third book being split into two movies, as do many people, I still look forward to future installments and wish the best for this new success story in the world of YA book-to-movie adaptations.