X-Men: Apocalypse

All things considered I think the new X-Men movie was decent enough. I certainly had fun watching it. Having read all those early reviews about how horrendous it was , especially one article I read that actually said it was slightly better than Batman V Superman---a movie I really loathed--- got me to think twice about seeing it in the cinema. There are movies that are meant to be watched in the cinema and some questionable ones that are better suited to see at home via cheap pirated copies of DVDs or free downloads. Good thing I decided to watch it on the big screen. Sometimes those reviews have a way of taking the fun out of potential roller coaster rides simply because you decided to see things the way the author insisted you to see it.

The movie takes place in the 80s this time around. First Class was the 60s, Days Of Future Past was the 70s and I'm guessing the fourth one will be in the 90s. Expect some Nirvana and loads of flannel on that one. 

They certainly had enough pop culture references during that decade: Return Of The Jedi, Nightcrawler's 'Thriller' jacket, and another one of those tongue in cheek soundtracks that  accompany Quicksilver's activities. This time around it's The Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams (Are Made Of These) instead of Jim Croce's Time In A Bottle. Fun, but the novelty of that sequence worked a lot better the first time. 

Instead of indestructible robots we have a thousands of years old mutant as the major villain, plus four cohorts standing for the four horsemen and a much younger version of the original X-Men cast. And this  cramped party, I believe, is where the critics balked. There were just too much new faces and characters that a movie with a limited running time can accommodate. Even Magneto's motivation to do what he did in this movie seemed rushed and oddly detached compared to his quiet intensity and one-track mind in the previous two films. 

Oscar Isaac's Apocalypse is a good villain. A megalomaniac with delusions of being a god always looks great when he realizes he finally met his match. And we finally get to see how Prof. X gets his bald pate. Would have been more fun if the reason wasn't as serious as what the movie has shown. Like maybe simply shaving his head because of some counterculture fascination but that's just me.

Hang on tight for the fourth one set in the alternative 90s.

Captain America: Civil War

*POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD

Having recently watched the movie and expecting it to be spectacularly good based on the Facebook posts of contacts who have already seen it ahead of me, I expected a bit of jaw-dropping experience from the entire proceedings. While it obviously ticked off the necessary features in the checklist found in every Marvel blockbuster movie especially The Avengers series, there's something about the entire movie I can't quite pinpoint as I left the cinema that I felt was somewhat lacking. 

The movie was not horrible. Far from it. It was brilliant in the way that it made the audience think about opposing ideas that have equal gravitas and well-taught out arguments. There's no easy way to choose a side considering the very ideas both are espousing are simply two separate parts of a perfect set-up. Tony Stark (Iron Man) argues about the need for some PR gloss by playing along with the UN for a much-needed security initiative to check the movements of a super-powered but dangerous team, and Steve Rogers (Captain America) counters with the notion that having a panel or an agency dictate when they need to move can be disastrous considering the institution they might answer for might be compromised anytime by both deadly threats or simple politics. One goal, different methods. This is the fundamental conflict that drives the entire movie forward. The main villain itself is simply reduced as a catalyst for the final showdown between the two heroes on opposite sides of the argument.

I guess my main objection about it is that I can't help that the movie ended in a cliffhanger that was not the least bit satisfying. I've had my fair share of 'bitin' endings in the past---especially on most European movies---that didn't have me scratching my head out of frustration. Even the thought of a sure installment in the Avengers franchise where you know for sure that the team is gonna be okay anyway, changed the fact that there was something off about the picture. 

I'm just nitpicking on trivialities here but I felt the movie should have been an Iron Man movie instead of Captain America. Near the end of the movie, Stark receives a letter from Rogers about why he did what he did, and all the other lofty ideals Captain America is known to spew out. But the overwhelming sentiment I had about it was that some sort of injustice was done to Stark considering he saw his parents murdered for the first time. Like the idea of them dying from an accident wasn't traumatic enough, his own friend took the side of his parents' murderer, justified or not. And all he got in the end was a letter of apology. That left a stale taste in the mouth. 

Having said all that, it made a good introduction for Tom Holland's Spider-Man and Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther. 

Still, Team Tony rules.