X-Men: Apocalypse Review

X-Men: Apocalypse is the ninth film in the X-Men franchise. It's directed by Bryan Singer and stars James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, and Oscar Isaac. In this film an ancient mutant is awakened and plans to take over the world, so the X-men have to stop him and his followers, The Four Horsemen of Apocalypse.

X-Men: Apocalypse had a lot to live up to, specially since it's the follow-up to X-Men: Days of Future Past (which is without a doubt the best X-Men film yet). Unfortunately this film was a big letdown. One of the main problems is the small amount of screen time McAvoy and Fassbender share together. Their scenes together were the highlights of X-Men: First Class, and X-Men: Days of Future Past. You only get a couple of scenes between the two of them here. With that being said though they both have great scenes on their own, with my favorite scene being one focusing on Magneto early on. The rest of the cast was great as expected, with Tye Sheridan actually being a good surprise as Cyclops. Sophie Turner was great as Jean, even though it took me a while to warm up to her. Evan Peter is once again fantastic as Quicksilver, with a great sequence here that manages to surpass the one from Days of Future Past. There is one big exception to the great performances, and that is Jennifer Lawrence. She delivered every single line flatly, and never showed any emotion at all.This wouldn't have been a big problem if she had a smaller role, but the film focuses on her a lot.  I don't know what was up with her, but it really felt like she just did not want to be in this film.

Then we have the horsemen. Fassbender did a great job as always, and you understood why he would side with Apocalypse. The other characters though not so much. Storm and Angel join Apocalypse for a really simple reason, but then there's Psylocke. She joins Apocalypse for what seems to be the fun of it, and the character has about 2 lines in the whole movie. There was nothing interesting about her at all. Rose Byrne is also in the movie, reprising her role from X-Men: First Class. She was fine, but her character could have been written out and the movie wouldn't have changed a bit.

Another big letdown is the action itself. The big finale was extremely disappointing, and it just didn't have the big scope that it should have. Something that bugged me too was the sense that only the X-Men were truly in danger. You do see the world being destroyed, but after a couple of shots showing this, the whole focus turns to the X-Men. There should have been more focus on the world and humanity as a whole than just the X-Men during the finale. There's also the subplot of Magneto being Quicksilvers father, which was completely wasted. I was hoping for some really good scenes between the two of them, but it never happens. Wolverine is also in the film. It was cool to see him in action here, but it wasn't really necessary. Apocalypse himself started out very very menacing, but as the film progressed I felt like that menace started to diminish.

The film is actually really good during the first 2 acts though, with the story being engaging since the beginning. You understand why Apocalypse wants the world to end, and why he would need four mutants following him around. Some of the action was really well done (with the exception of the finale), and the cast was mostly great (except for Lawrence). The film just really dropped the ball once the final act kicked in. X-Men: Apocalypse is still worth a watch, just don't get your hopes up for a great X-Men film since this one is mostly just an O.K film. 3/5

Eye in the Sky Review

Eye in the Sky is a thriller starring Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Aaron Paul, and Barkhad Abdi. The film, directed by Gavin Hood,  is about military personnel facing the legal, ethical and political dilemmas presented by drone warfare against those using terrorist tactics, and civilians who are endangered by it.

I'll start by saying that Eye in the Sky was fantastic. Every aspect of the film worked brilliantly. It's a film that I believe works best without knowing much about it going in, so I won't delve into specific plot points. I will say that the film does explore drone warfare. It goes into every single aspect of it. The legal aspect, the political aspect, and the ethical aspect. What I loved though is that the film never takes a specific stance. It shows the viewers all the different points of view, but it let's the audience decide what they believe is right or wrong. Should we use drones to eliminate a threat before it happens even though civilians will be harmed and the public will turn on the government? Should we just let terrible things happen and just blame the terrorists so that the public turns on the terrorists?  It maintains this all the way to the end, with the ending itself being the best possible ending they could have chosen.

The performances are great all around, with everyone showing the right amount of emotion. This is the kind of movie that could have suffered from going too emotional or too emotionless, specially since most of the film you're basically watching people in a room talking. It's also a film that will keep you on the edge of your seat, since you're never sure as to what will unfold next or what the final outcome will be. The pacing was great, as it slowly builds and builds to the inevitable outcome This is a movie that proves that you don't have to have big action to make something that is completely enthralling and interesting.  5/5

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising Review

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising is the sequel to the 2014 comedy Neighbors. Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, and Rose Byrne return for this one with the addition of Chloe Grace Moretz. The basic premise follows Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne as they try to sell their house. They find a couple who are interested, but they find themselves in a 30 day period in which the couple finds no problem at all with the house or the neighbors before they buy. At this point a sorority moves next door. This isn't the regular kind of sorority. It's a sorority that wants to be able to throw their own parties, and live by their own rules (since sororities only attend frat parties and aren't allowed to throw their own). Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne then seek help from Zac Efron so they can get the sorority out of the way before their sale fails.

I loved the first Neighbors. It was really funny, well paced, and actually had some heart to it with themes of what it's like to grow up. Neighbors 2 though isn't as funny or as well paced as the first one. That's not saying it is a boring movie. It is very funny, just not quite like the first one. Pacing is another issue since it tends to drag at times. The reason for this though is actually quite surprising. Neighbors 2 is a film that actually has something to say about sexism, and it does really well. It never becomes preachy, and it actually makes some very good points. The way women are treated at parties, all the way to the jokes women can or can't make are things that are discussed here. This are the points were the movie drags a bit though since there isn't a lot of funny stuff going on. Interesting? Yes. Funny? Not so much. Once more we also see themes of growing up. It felt a little repetitive since this was an aspect the first film had explored at first, but the film handles it a little bit differently this time around which is definitely a positive. Another positive i the fact that the film doesn't try to recycle jokes from the first movie (which a lot of comedy sequels do). It actually takes elements from the first one and uses them in different ways.

Everyone did a great job in the film. Seth Rogen, Rose Byrne, and Zac Efron have great chemistry together. Chloe Grace Moretz and the rest of the sorority were also pretty good, and they really make the whole sexism aspect of the movie work even more. Every one has an arc here that comes to a satisfying conclusion, which was something I don't believe the first quite nailed. I do wish the film had a faster pacing since it takes a while for the crazy stuff to start happening, and while it wasn't as funny as the first one I did find it deeper (which was a surprise, specially from a Seth Rogen comedy). Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising is the rare comedy sequel that actually works, even if it doesn't quite surpass the first one. 3.5/5

Captain America: Civil War vs Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

In less than two months we got a couple of hero vs hero superhero films. The first one released was Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice. The second one was Captain America: Civil War. I wanted to take a look at both films and compare them, specially since Batman v Superman didn't succeed in the ways Civil War did. Both films are very similar not just because of the hero vs hero aspect of them. There's the fact that in both films the heroes have different ideologies, and they also get manipulated into fighting at one point. Civil War was fantastic in every single aspect, but Batman v Superman was a big letdown. I'd like to clarify that even though I was disappointed with BvS, I still enjoyed it. So let's look at both films and see why BvS got wrong what Civil War got right. There will be SPOILERS ahead.

BUILD UP
Batman v Superman is the second film in the DC Extended Universe. The first film we got was Man of Steel, and we never saw Batman during that film. BvS had to introduce us to that character, and set up the conflict between him and Superman. Civil War though is the thirteenth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We've seen Iron Man and Captain America together in The Avengers and in Avengers: Age of Ultron. Civil War didn't need to introduce either Iron Man or Captain America, plus during both Avengers films we see in various films that both characters think very differently and tend to have confrontations. Going into Civil War we already know that there tends to be tension between this two characters. In BvS there was no such pre-existing relationship. This is the smallest problem for BvS though. I do believe that even though Civil War had an advantage because of this, BvS could have made it work. A bigger problem is the fact that Batman and Superman barely get to interact with each other before their big fight.

INTERACTIONS                                                  Here comes one of the biggest problems Batman v Superman has. Batman and Superman only share two scenes together before their fight. The first scene is at a party held by Lex Luthor. In this scene Clark Kent and Bruce Wayne have an exchange in which they discuss why they believe Batman and Superman are dangerous. Clark finds Batman too violent, while Bruce finds Superman too powerful. The scene is fairly long, the problem here is the fact that since neither Bruce or Clark have revealed each others identity, the conversation isn't a complete exploration of their ideologies. Then there is a second scene. After a big action scene featuring the Batmobile, Superman intervenes and tears open the Batmobile. We finally have Batman and Superman face to face. What do we get? Superman just tells Batman that he should bury The Bat, to which Batman responds to Superman that he'll make him bleed. Superman flies off and the scene ends. This was the perfect scene for both of them to talk and actually discuss why they function the way they do.

 Civil War on the other hand has multiple scenes in which Tony and Steve discuss why they should or should not have supervision. There is also escalation to their interactions, each time the argument getting more heated. When the time the two of them fight there's a clear understanding as to why they're both fighting.

MANIPULATION                                                                                                        Both films feature a villain who ends up manipulating the heroes (to a certain extent) to fight. BvS has Lex Luthor, and Civil War has Baron Zemo. Let's start off with BvS. In BvS Lex Luthor manipulates Superman into fighting Batman. He tells Superman that he has captured his mother, and that she'll die in 60 minutes unless he kills Batman.

In Civil War we have Baron Zemo. He lures Cap, Bucky, and Tony to his lair. Here he shows them footage of Bucky killing Tonys' parents. Tony asks Cap if he knew, to which Cap responds that he did. This (obviously) leads to a big fight. So what's the difference between the two? In BvS, Superman fights Batman just to save his mother. He isn't fighting him because he finds his methods wrong. Civil War though has them fighting because of the different ideas each character has. Tony wants Bucky dead for killing his parents. Cap defends Bucky because he was under the control of H.Y.D.R.A. The way in which Zemo manipulates our heroes is much stronger than Lexs' method. Lex basically forces Superman to fight. Zemo though doesn't make them fight. He just shows some footage that he knows is going to cause a real fight.

EMOTION                                                                                                                         In Civil War there's emotion during the confrontation between Cap and Iron Man. Tony has just learned who killed his parents. He had a rough relationship with his parents, and never got to fix that due to them being killed. He has had to live with this pain for years, and it's all thanks to Bucky killing them. Plus Cap never told him the truth. On the other hand we have Cap, who defends Bucky due to him being brain-washed by HYDRA when this happened. He also believed he was doing the right thing for Tony by not telling him the truth. When they clash in the finale there's a lot of emotion, specially since you are seeing two friends fight each other.

BvS though had none of this. Batman fights Superman because he believes he is dangerous. Superman fights Batman because his mom is in danger. In reality Superman doesn't want to fight Batman. He even tries to explain the situation to Batman before the end up fighting. The result is something that doesn't have any emotion. They aren't friends, one of them doesn't even want to fight. It ends up being a fight that is very entertaining but empty at the same time.

RESOLUTION                                                                
The final problem BvS had was the way the fight ended. In Bvs we have the now infamous Martha scene. As Batman is about to kill Superman, Superman tells Batman to "save Martha". Martha happens to be the name of Batmans mother too. He instantly drops the kryptonite spear with which he was gonna kill Superman. Lois rushes into the room and tells Batman that Martha is the name of Clarks mother. That is it, the fight ends and they team up. I get why they did this. Batman realizes that Clark has people that care about him too. He sees the humanity in him. The problem is the scene is really short, so most people just think that they stopped fighting because their mothers had the same name.

In Civil War the fight ends after Cap destroys Tonys arc reactor with his shield. Cap picks up Bucky (who now only has one arm) and starts to leave. At this moment Tony reminds him that his shield was made by his father, and that he doesn't deserve it. Cap drops the shield and leaves. It's a pretty sad ending. Even though Cap sends Tony a letter at the end of the film telling him that he can count on him, you can still tell that the team is now broken, and that Tony still hasn't forgiven Cap. I get that BvS had to have a "happy ending" between Batman and Superman because they have to make Justice League. It was just way too fast, and poorly handled.

Civil War got a lot of what BvS got wrong by really fleshing out characters and giving everyone a believable reason to do what they're doing. Don't get me wrong though, BvS has a lot of great moments in it. The whole exploration of what Superman is or should be was fantastic, but when it came down to the main event (which was Batman v Superman) there was a lot to be desired. I still though the fight between them was great, but it never made me feel any kind of emotion other than "This is really cool". I hope DC learns from this and start to pay more attention to how they get their characters to interact with one another.