Movie discussion: When is “X-Men: Apocalypse” set?

345806c2ded3ff772516f28f9890970a-18769600795716d132602b26-43284584

Hello there ladies and gents, and welcome to Movie Discussions, a series I have on this blog that’s been kind of dead since… April 2015, holy shit. But this is where I ramble about theories and such I have regarding movies. And today we will be taking a look at this year’s “X-Men: Apocalypse”. So with that said, if you have not seen the movie then I recommend that you do first, because there will be some spoilers throughout. There, with that cleared up… let’s get into it!

So in this post we will be taking a look at the question… When is “X-Men: Apocalypse” set? Now, I don’t mean what year, because we do get told that it is 1983. What I mean is that I want to be more specific as to when in 1983 it is set… and I think I have managed to get a pretty good idea as to when, since it doesn’t say any specific dates in the movie, only the year. But with help from certain clues I found in the movie, I have narrowed it down a bit. So let’s talk about it.

The first clue as to figuring it out comes in the form of the scene when Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) together with Psylocke (Olivia Munn) and Storm (Alexandra Shipp) goes to recruit Angel (Ben Hardy). In the scene we have a miserable and most likely drunk Angel, moping while listening to Metallica’s “The Four Horsemen”, which in itself is a fun nod toward Apocalypse and his four horsemen. But this actually realle helps narrow down the time quite a bit. You see, “The Four Horsemen” is a part of Metallica’s debut album “Kill ’em All”, which came out in 1983. To be more specific, it was released on July 25th of that year. So this basically eliminiates the entire first half of 1983. And logically speaking, Angel is probably not listening to that on the day the album came out, so we can most definitely eliminate July as well. And for those who are wondering, “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)”, which was featured in the amazing Quicksliver (Evan Peters) rescue scene, was released in ’83, but before “Kill ’em All”.

My next piece of evidence leans a bit more on speculation, but if you think about it I am making some sense. This isn’t necessarily from a specific scene, it’s more a general thing that could be gathered every now and then. In the scenes where we are at the X-mansion we are given a good look at the outside surrounding it. Based on information given to us from the writers of the comics and such, the X-mansion is supposedly located in the very northeast corner of Westchester county, which is part of the state of New York (because Marvel loves New York apparently). And in my research I quickly found out that Westchester county and the state of New York in general have really snowy winters. And looking at the area surrounding the mansion, we can see that there’s no snow, in fact it is quite green in the area. So that immediately eliminates December. And going back to it being green and even sunny, I’d argue tht November and October are out of the question too since that’s when shit starts decaying and becoming grey, AKA not green, AKA not this movie.

So after eliminating the first half of the year and the last three months of the year, we have managed to narrow down that movie is set around August or September of 1983. Would it be possible to narrow it down even more? Probably. At this point I can only really guess. The closest thing we have to a piece of evidence is Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) being in a High School classroom when we first meet him. And I’m pretty sure High School doesn’t begin until late August/early September in the states, but I could be wrong on that, especially since this movie is set in 1983 and not 2016. But if I’m right with that, the movie is most likely set in September of 1983. Again, this is mainly speculation. I won’t really lose any sleep if Bryan Singer or Simon Kinberg refuse to confirm if I’m correct or not with this. I just did this because I started thinking about it this morning and felt like I needed to write about it. And it’s fun to do another Movie Discussion again. But to conclude this: Based on evidence found throughout the movie, I have (probably) come to the conclusion that “X-Men: Apocalypse” is set in August/September of 1983!

What do you guys think? Am I making sense? Am I conjuring up total bullshit? Do you have any other theories? Leave any and all answers in the comments!
Have a good one!

 

Movie Review: X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

x-men-apocalypse-2

I have been a pretty big fan of Marvel’s mutant franchise for most of my life. It all started with the cartoon “X-Men: Evolution”, and then I of course started watching the movies. And the rest is history. So I am of course always excited when a new one of these is about to be released. So let’s see if this was another hit.

Ladies and gentlemen… “X-Men: Apocalypse”!

Ancient mutant En Sabah Nur (Oscar Isaac) has awoken from his really long slumber and is recruiting various mutants to join him in destroying the world and rebuilding it into something different. So it’s up to Professor X (James McAvoy), Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Beast (Nicholas Hoult), and a bunch of other mutants to stop him before everything goes to shit. Sounds pretty standard from that outlook, but it is far more interesting than that. The only real flaw with the story is that it takes a while to actually grab the viewer and get them invested. But after about 20 – 30 minutes we get a scene involving Magneto (Michael Fassbender) which truly helps kick off the story and increase the drama. And after that I felt that the plot worked very well throughout, featuring some truly great storytelling. Again, it’s those first minutes that take a while to get going as they only act to set up characters and the plot. But after that… shit gets good!

The characters in this movie are really interesting. James McAvoy as Professor X once again knocked it out of the park, he is so great in this movie. Michael Fassbender as Magneto, fucking amazing, especially since he actually gets a few pretty damn emotional moments. And the interplay between these two main characters is just as great as ever. Jennifer Lawrence was good as Mystique, you could tell that she was phoning it in a little bit, but overall her perforamance was good. Nicholas Hoult was great as Beast. Rose Byrne (welcome back), was really good as Moira MacTaggert. Evan Peters as Quicksilver… he was just awesome, like in “Days of Future Past”. I’d even argue that he’s even better in this movie since he gets more to do and has more of a purpose in this story. So now let’s talk about the newcomers. Sophie Turner was really good as Jean Grey, I am glad that she got to shine a bit in this movie with some scenes/moments that requires the actor to be able to portray anger and distress in a movie, and she nailed it. Tye Sheridan played Cyclops in this movie and I thought he was really good. And I’m not just saying that because I’m a fan of Sheridan, but I am saying it because he was genuinely good in the role. And to answer your questions, yes I am really a fan of the guy. Kodi Smit-McPhee played Nightcrawler in the movie, and that is something I was really interested in because Nightcrawler is my favorite mutant. And I am happy to say that the guy was really good in the role. Then finally, let’s talk about Oscar Isaac as En Sabah Nur, or Apocalypse as he’s more known as. Oscar Isaac is one of the best actors of the modern generation, so I was very excited when he was cast in the role. And how was he? At first his performance felt a little odd, not exactly something that I’d say was great. But then as the movie went on I got more used to it and I’d even argue that his performance got a better over time. And as a villain in general I thought Apocalypse was fine, he was suitably intimidating and badass.

Like in the previous movie, the score was composed by John Ottman who also did the editing on the film. But how was his score for the movie? Good. It’s, bombastic… the stuff you’d expect from this type of huge superhero movie. Not to say that it’s bad, I’m just saying that it doesn’t take any big or unique or unexpected turns. But it’s good. And there are a few licensed tracks in the movie as well that caught my attention, mainly because of how cleverly they were put in the movie.

This is the fourth “X-Men” movie to be directed by Bryan Singer. And I think that he once again did a great job. The shots look good and the action is very well directed. Speaking of action, there are two action scenes in this movie that just blew me away. One of them is one I won’t spoil in case you have managed to avoid trailers and/or spoilers and haven’t seen the movie yet. But let me tell you… it’s brutal and badass. The other one… remember Quicksilver’s awesome scene from “Days of Future Past”? Yeah, it’s like that but even better. And the visual effects in the movie look great. Sure, at times there a fuckload of it and you know it… but I never thought it detracted from the movie at all… stuff looked great.

This movie has gotten some truly mixed reception. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a 48% positive rating. On Metacritic it has a score of 52/100. And on imdb.com it has a score of 7,2/10.

I honestly don’t understand all the hate that “X-Men: Apocalypse” has gotten. Is it the best “X-Men” movie? No. But it’s still a damn fine movie. With a good plot, great characters, great acting, good music, great directing, great action, and some great visual effects. The only drawback is those first 20 – 30 minutes that kind of drag on. Time for my final score. *Cough*. My final score for “X-Men: Apocalypse” is a 9,40/10. It’s not perfect, but it’s still definitely worth buying!
Worth buying

My review of “X-Men: Apocalypse” is now completed.

Feel thy name extermination
Desecrating, hail of fire
So we cross that line
Into the crypt
Total eclipse
Suffer unto my apocalypse!

Movie Review: Joe (2013)

Image

For a few years now, movies that have featured Nicolas Cage have been…less than stellar. But you don’t need me to tell you that! Not with movies like “The Wicker Man” and “Stolen”. But the reason I was able to watch them was because of this great guy. He just makes them a hell of a lot more amusing and entertaining. He is also a weird fucking guy. Did you know he ate a live cockroach in a scene in “Vampire’s Kiss”? Seriously, Cage! Ew! But back to the actual topic…a movie featuring Mister Cage in a movie that have gotten people saying he is back in the saddle again. Well, let’s see if this reviewer rides along or just want to kill himself with laughter.

Joes and…Jos…”Joe”.

The movie follows 15-year old guy Gary (Tye Sheridan) who is looking to get something out of life…mainly a job so he can make money for his family. So he goes to ex-con Joe (Nicolas Cage) who does forest work. And what that forest work is, that is pretty interesting. They poison old weak trees and cut them down to get place for new healthy trees to be planted there. So Joe hires this kid he has never seen before. And they bond, kind of like father & son. But what gets in the way of that sometimes is Gary’s father Wade (Gary Poulter, R.I.P). There is also this rapey douchebag known as Willie-Russell (Ronnie Gene Blevins) who wants to kind of,,,rape Gary’s mother and sister. And he gets his ass kicked early on in the movie by Gary and Joe…at different points. Another vital point to mention about this movie is how Joe got a lot of built in rage, and when that rage gets released…shit gets real. And throughout the movie a lot of dark and disturbing shit happens. So based on the sort of basic story of the movie, it got a lot of similarities to “Mud”. Not only in the story, but also the irony how the story combined with Tye Sheridan playing the main kid in both movies make them similar. I guess you could say that this is a more dark and disturbing version of “Mud”. The difference however (except for the obvious one of Cage-McConaughey) is that “Mud” got a little more of a focused story. I mean, this movie feels like it’s everywhere it feels like. “Mud” had more of a progressive story…and you noticed that. But in “Joe”…not so much. But overall…pretty good…maybe a little disturbing.

The characters are dark and honestly a bit depressing. The only one I don’t wanna punch in the face is honestly Joe since he is a sincere, kind and just cool guy. I also don’t wanna punch Gary. Why? Because he does everything he do for his family to help out, but his abusive/alcoholic dad is in teh damn way all the time. But the characters like I said…dark, a little depressing…and what I did not mention, layered. They have many layers of their personalities and that is what makes them more complex and watchable than expected. Godo job actors and writer!

The music is like the movie…Dark and Disturbing. And that is what makes it so good. It is a mix of this sort of…southern state style…but also the bone-chilling style that you heard in “Requiem For a Dream”. So in general…the music is really good.

I usually say “something fun about this” in this section…but this time it is not fun. It’s just depressing. The guy who plays the alcoholic father, Gary Poulter played fantastically. And while that sounds all fine and dandy, it’s not. In the movie he plays this alcoholic with a piece of crap home. In real life, he is an alcoholic homeless man. That’s right, director David Gordon Green pulled a homeless man of the streets to play a character that was a more dark version of himself…and he did great. The sad thing is that a few months after they were done filming the movie, he was found dead on the side of the road, in a shallow body of water. Depressed yet? Good. Now to mention something more amusing…Nicolas Cage legitimately picks up a poisonous snake in the movie.  Not kidding, watch the thumbnail for this review. Fun fact: Nicolas Cage likes dangerous snakes, they are apparently his friends…I told you he’s fucking weird. Also, this movie looks stunning…not kidding.

Reception for “Joe” was generally good. Rotten Tomatoes currently holds the highest overall score for this with an 83% rating and certified it “Fresh”. Metacritic gave this movie a 73/100 rating (at the time of this review). And since Roger Ebert had passed away about five months before the release of this movie, he has no review for it. But some other dude on his site has a review for it.
imdb.com currently holds the rating of 7,2/10.

So now I have given my opinions on different aspects of “Joe” and I’m ready to give it a score. I am giving this movie the score of 8,94/10. This movie is worth a buy whenever the hell it comes out. It also contains the best best performance I have ever seen from Nicolas Cage. Reason the score is under 9/10 or even 10/10 is because of how dark and disturbing it is at times.

“Joe” is now reviewed.

Rest in peace Gary Poulter…you did a great job in this movie.

Movie Review: Mud (2012)

Image

 

Matthew McConaughey…he’s just too cool. For a while he made a bunch of mediocre movies. But in the last couple of years he have done some great ones. Lincoln Lawyer, Wolf of Wall Street, Dallas Buyers Club…even Killer Joe. And this movie is an interesting example of a McConaughey movie that have gotten a lot of recognition lately. But what are my thoughts on it? Let us take a look at the strange movie…MUD.

The story is about two boys called Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) who while on a trip out into the woods/swamp area, they find this mysterious man called Mud (Matthew McConaughey). This guy wants to be reunited with his true love Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). So these boys help him fix an old boat that Mud lives in so he and Juniper can get away from there. But hwat the boys at first don’t know is that Mud is a fugitive who had killed someone. But still, Ellis forms a sort of bond with Mud and they become good friends. The story I have to say is very different and pretty original. When I saw the movie it reminded me of movies like Stand by Me (1986) and Winter’s Bone (2010). A sort of “coming of age” story. I really digged the story.

When it comes to the characters…they are flawed, but interesting. They are interesting mainly by the great performances everybody gives. Even relative newcomer Tye Sheridan gives a really good performance. But when it comes to the acting/character, the show is stolen by motherfucking Matthew McConaughey as Mud. That guy does such a great job that he is Oscar worth in the movie. And ladies, he is shirtless in one scene…but you have to be able to stand some bad dentures.

The music in this movie is honestly fucking awesome. It is the kind of music you’d expect for this type of setting. The south. Like, swamps and remote towns and shit. Yeah, it’s so good.

This movie lloks really good, it is beautifully shot and edited.

Reception for Mud was excellent, a lot of people and critics really liked it. Even Roger Ebert liked it. But a few people called it a snooze fest. I see what they mean, but I don’t fucking care.

So this movie got A LOT going for it. A neat little coming of age story, great performances, amazing music, beautifully filmed. So I am going to give Mud my personal 8,99/10. So I reccomend you to go and buy this gem! You can get it off amazon for like 10 dollars.

This is my bad review of Mud.

Arrivederci!