The COARD: Free State of Jones

Switching back to spoiler interwoven format again? Is there any consistency in this world? Why does everything always change? These are all valid questions, but you can depend on us. We know what is best for your review reading self. We would never lead you astray. One can't really spoil history because, well, it's history. Trust us when we tell you that even if you go in knowing all the subject matter, this movie is still worth seeing.

Cody: Roy and I both expected this movie to be about an epic rebellion within a rebellion. Battles, action, death. These are tag words I would have associated with Free State of Jones going in. Well apparently the critics of America felt the same way, because they gave it a disappointing 41% on Rotten Tomatoes. If I love anything in this world, I love ranting indignantly when I disagree with the critics' Tomato Meter score. Roy and I were wrong going in, but unlike the stubborn idiots who do for money what we do better for free, we didn't stay wrong. I welcomed this half documentary, half biopic, half war epic with open arms. "Cody, if I'm counting correctly, that's 1.5 movies you've got there." You're right, reader who I'm writing imaginary dialogue for. This movie tried to be three things at once, and, you know what? It actually kind of pulled it off. It wasn't a seamless tapestry of subject matter, but the importance of the story being told kept me engaged the whole way through. I went in expecting just a war epic, and I was pleasantly surprised by also receiving a lesson on an important and tumultuous time in American history.

The Many Shades of McConaughey: Page 7
Newton Knight - The intensity of
the McConaugaze

Roy: I sat down to watch a Civil War version of The Patriot. I was surprised when the war ended and I still had 45 minutes of movie left. I can always tell when I've seen a movie I really enjoyed, because I spend the subsequent 24 hours thinking about how that movie made me feel. Free State of Jones absolutely falls into that category. Cody, I like how you framed it... A rebellion within a rebellion. But reducing it to only that does a great injustice to the film makers. This was so much more. The best way to describe what this movie was truly about is Mississippi's grudge against one man who was 100 years ahead of his time when it came to the civil rights movement. And if you take into account where he lived, and you absolutely should, he was more than 100 years ahead of his time. In one of the scariest places we have in this great union of ours, a man chose to live by his code. Regardless of the fact that his code pitted him against insurmountable odds. Matthew McConaughey was magnificent as Newton Knight. I don't care what this man does. I am always captivated by the characters he portrays.

The Many Shades of McConaughey: page 43
Matthew McConaudreamy

Cody: The Matthew McConaughey era is real, and we are living in it. We live in the era of heroes who are just us in 10 years. Where we are the reason we are successful. It's arrogant, but it's liberating. I'll never not make fun of McConaughey for that moment, but I'd be lying if I said I don't think along similar lines. So yes, McConaughey continues to reign supreme. Once again, the kid from Nowheresville (Uvalde), Texas completely owned a character. Granted, being cast as a Civil War southerner certainly is advantageous for someone with such a natural drawl. Here's a knowledge bomb for everybody out there. We are currently seeing the career of McConaughey follow a seriously Tom Hanks like arc. Hanks was known as a romantic comedy lead before he broke through at age 37 with an Oscar for Philadelphia, where he played a man with AIDS during the height of the AIDS hysteria. McConaughey? Also known as more of a romantic comedy lead before breaking through two years ago at age 44 with an Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club, where he played a man with AIDS during the height of AIDS hysteria. Hanks went on to win back to back Best Actor Oscars, but we can't all be Hanks. McConaughey chose instead to follow up Buyers with the stellar Interstellar, and you won't hear me complain about that. Hanks continued his torrid pace with Apollo 13, Cast Away, and The Green Mile. We could be in the middle of a 5-6 year stretch where everything comes up McConaughey. I don't see him getting an Oscar nod for this performance, but his next nomination is around the corner. Seeing as I can't stop waxing poetic about Matthew McConaughey, I should probably let Roy interrupt so we can eventually get back to Free State of Jones.

Roy: You forgot to point out one of the more impressive accomplishments of McConaughey in the midst of spritzing perfume on your love letter to him. He was one of the first big time Hollywood stars to cross the invisible line between TV and movies. Because of that decision and his considerable talent, he chased that Oscar with the best actor Emmy for his work in True Detective. He is quickly approaching Damon and DiCaprio territory where I will go see any movie that he is in. However it wasn't just him in this movie. Our beloved Keri Russell was excellent in a very small role and Gugu Mbatha-Raw crushed the role of Rachel. If you see this movie and wonder where you've seen Gugu Mbatha-Raw before, she was the adorable Talia in Tom Hanks' heavily underrated Larry Crowne. One more Hanks-McConaughey link! The acting wasn't the only thing to like about this movie however. The pacing was also entirely unexpected but interesting at the same time. Out of nowhere it jumps ahead 80 years and gives the audience just a tiny bit of courtroom drama before jumping back to the main story. I wasn't sure I liked it at first but it quickly grew on me once I saw where this film was taking me. It was just one more thing I liked about this odd but wonderful movie. I'm sure Cody has plenty to say on that subject. ....   .....? Cody? .....

         Sorry about that everyone. Cody is busy working on his scrapbook, "The Many Shades of McConaughey" so it looks like I get two paragraphs. This film deals heavily with the subject of war, which is not surprising considering the Civil War is arguably the most horrific war this country has ever fought. I'm going to try and do this without nerding out too bad so please just bare with me. There is a tag line from Fallout that I kept hearing after I left the movie, "War. War never changes." It perfectly captured the emotional reaction I had to this film. After McConaughey's character Newton Knight witnessed the death of his nephew he decided he was done fighting a war he no longer understood. Returning home, Knight was furious at the injustice of what was happening to his community. The southern soldiers were pillaging the local farms for anything they could to feed the war machine, thus leaving women and children alone to starve. He walked away from the war he was being forced to fight and began fighting a war he believed in. He refused to stand by and watch the underprivileged of his community die while other men profited greatly off of the chaos and death. It doesn't matter if the war is being fought for a just reason. It doesn't matter what century the war is being fought in. There will always be those who will profit from the worst part of humanity by taking advantage of the noble and honorable sacrifice of brave individuals. And that is a travesty. Any number of things can change in life, especially in the span of 150 years, but war... war never changes. Do you agree, Cody? ....You there?

The Many Shades of McConaughey: Cover
Rust Cohle, the most complicated man
this side of Don Draper

Cody: Huh? Oh crap, we're still doing a review. Sorry, I was busy. Oh, I see Roy outed me...well, I didn't forget about True Detective. I just choose to repress that show because of the stink bomb of a second season. Rust Cohle will never be forgotten. He's on the cover of The Many Shades of McConaughey.
       You bring up a good point about pace with this movie. I mentioned earlier that the movie tried to be three things at once. The director, Gary Ross, knew he was making a hodgepodge movie, but he owned it. Like you said, one minute you're watching one story and the next it's something else. It's disconcerting, but he trusted us to figure it out and settle in. No explanation, no hand holding, just the expectation that you can follow along.
       The war piece of this story definitely stuck with me as well. The Civil War is usually painted in one of two ways. Either a war over slavery and human rights, or a war over a way of life/honor/dignity. Neither is really wrong, from what I understand. War is a complicated thing, and it isn't easy or fair to try to come up with a single explanation for what it's all about. However, this was an angle on the war I hadn't seen before. The focus on poor southern white men who were conscripted into the Confederate army. Most of these men didn't own slaves, so they didn't have that as a reason to fight. The idea of honor and dignity was brought up by fellow soldiers, but dismissed by Newton Knight as he planned to desert. They sit around the campfire and discuss a new rule allowing rich slave owners to actually avoid being drafted into a war where they presumably are the ones with the most to lose. It had never occurred to me that there was this whole population of southerners who had no stake in the war whatsoever. They joined because they had to, but didn't want to die for something that didn't matter to them. Who would? That's why Knight was able to collect a sizable army of deserters. If understanding those men a little better was the only tidbit of knowledge I took away from this movie, then it would have been worth it.
       But it was not the only thing learned here. Not even close. Eventually the Civil War ended, but the war for freedom for African-Americans continued to rage in Mississippi, and across the former Confederate states. That's where the second half of the movie spends its time. Sure, I thought about the tragedy of war after this movie, but leaving the theater, my mind was on the incredible journey made by African-Americans since the end of that terrible war. There were so many moments that struck me as powerful examples of the struggle these people went through just to be treated like equal humans. Once such moment was the introduction of laws allowing forced "apprenticeships" on plantations. Essentially a workaround for the newly ratified 13th amendment abolishing slavery. So freed slaves suddenly were in a forced work situation that was, well, slavery. Thankfully, the US government didn't rest on its laurels, and eventually wised up to the various loopholes and workarounds being exploited across the south. But still, how many lives were ruined during that stage of what would become the Civil Rights Movement? Apologies for rampaging through over 500 words there. It's just that scrapbooking is a lonely hobby, and I had a lot of time to think while deciding between Cooper from Interstellar and Ben Barry from How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days as the back cover for The Many Shades of McConaughey.

The Many Shades of McConaughey: Back cover
Jake Tyler Brigance, champion of the
underprivileged and repressed

Roy: Cody, considering the current review with all of the southern drawls and civil rights implications, if you do not make Jake Tyler Brigance from A Time to Kill the back page of The Many Shades of McConaughey then I don't even know who you are anymore. You my friend... have just been McConauserved. Regardless of how obviously terrible you are at scrapbooking, you are on point when it comes to civil rights. I never really spent much time considering the military reconstruction of the south and the reason why it happened. This movie changed that. One of my favorite moments was watching Knight lead a group of armed African-Americans down main street determined to take their right to vote at any cost. When greeted with scowls and loaded shotguns, Knight needed only one sentence. "We mind dying a whole lot less than you." It perfectly captured the desperation of men who were born as only 1/3 of a person exercising their right to be a whole man. Sadly, thousands of them paid for that right with their lives. This movie did not gloss over the atrocities the Klu Klux Klan perpetrated on the citizens of the south. It was as terrifying to watch as it was sad. It reminded me of what a terrible place Mississippi was if you happened to be any color other than white. It may be unfair to paint an entire state with such a broad brush. After all, Newton Knight was a man from Mississippi who needs to be remembered and I am sure he wasn't the only one. It's a shame that the refuse of our nation had such a stranglehold on that region for so long. On rare occasions, I have had to drive through the state of Mississippi. And I would be lying if I told you their ugly history wasn't on my mind, which may or may not have had a direct bearing on whether I did or did not stop in that state at all... Even if I did or did not have to pee.... like really bad.

Cody: This movie had several pieces that were worth carrying with you. I took all of them and pondered them seriously after watching. That will also be my main takeaway as a review. It was a movie that made you think. A ton of moments that just stuck with you. Another moment that stuck with me came right after the voting scene you mentioned. Clearly African-Americans showed up to vote, but the movie reveals that the results were clearly tampered with. This is America we're talking about. The birthplace of democracy, the highest value we hold in this country. Tampering with results of African-Americans wasn't just racist, it was anti-American. Granted, the men in question did sort of just try to quit America. So I guess they pretty much were okay with that idea. However, it still disturbs me beyond regular racism. Or at least, it isn't today's racism. That's above and beyond, going out of your way, and breaking the law racism. Which surely goes on less today, but I guess, then again, I haven't visited Mississippi in a while. I just don't have time to travel right now; I've got a scrapbook to finish.

The COARD: Finding Dory

After taking a brief hiatus from our typical format last review, we are back to more familiar ground this week. There will be a non-spoiler review to start things off, and a section where we discuss the poorly written and executed plot points of an animated movie about an adult fish looking for her parents. You may not be able to tell but I'm totally rolling my eyes.  

Roy: Finding Dory. What can I say? It definitely had its moments. Both good and bad. Unfortunately the bad outweighed the good. You can tell from my haiku that I was not expecting much from this movie. I am typically ok with sequels. I even get excited for them as a general rule. With one exception. Animated movies. In my experience, anytime an animated movie is given another chapter it is 90 minutes of the same jokes, and the same characters making the same jokes. I get it. I am not the demographic that is being aimed for. And kids want the same characters telling the same jokes. So it does well and is quite successful. And to Pixar's credit, they added some fresh things in this sequel to make it enjoyable for the adults and to keep things moving. Literally. The bad news is one of the new additions kept perpetuating one of my main problems with the film. I really enjoyed the three new characters. Hank, Destiny, and Bailey, were all good additions to this franchise, partly because the actors voicing these characters are all great. Ed O'Neill and Ty Burrell are always fun together, and Kaitlin Olson is great in everything she does. These new characters brought a lot to a film that frankly, needed their help.

"Better than Godfather Part II"
-People everywhere

Cody: If you think I'm going to let this slide by without mentioning Toy Story 2, one of the best sequels of all time, then you're crazy. And yes, I said sequel, not animated sequel. Toy Story 2 was that freaking good. It has nothing to do with the fact that I was eight years old when it came out, and suggesting otherwise would be slanderous and preposterous. Anyway, speaking of best in category movies, Finding Dory is the long awaited sequel to one of the best animated films of all time, so it stood no chance at living up to expectations. However, I was expecting it to be mostly a swing and miss. Doubting the quality of a Pixar film is like doubting the ocean's tides, but I've had a feeling that Pixar, like our fish friends, has been playing too close to the drop off. Given the lofty expectations following up the beloved Nemo after 10 years, this was a success. Was it as good? Definitely not. But it was close enough to be worthy of it's place next to Nemo. The laughs were light and easy throughout the entire movie, and they sprinkled in just enough feels. Not approaching the upper echelon of Pixar's distinguished resume, but definitely not drifting near the bottom with the Good Dinosaurs of the filmography.

Roy: Toy Story 2 is the one glaring exception to the rule. And I would argue that part of that is star power. Tom Hanks is a national treasure, and say what you want about Tim Allen, the guy understands his wheelhouse and dominates it. In Finding Dory we have.... Ellen? Who, do not get me wrong, is super famous and also quite brilliant at what she does but is not a typical Hollywood headliner. The biggest stars in this movie is the cast of Modern Family. Which by the way, subtle Disney. Reeeeaaallll subtle. I will fully agree that Toy Story 2 is the standard that all animated sequels strive to be. But I think you will agree with me when I say that it stands alone. This movie did have plenty of chuckles and a couple of good emotional moments. It wasn't bad. It just wasn't that good either. I kept wanting it to be more than it was. The biggest mistake that Pixar did was pigeon hole themselves with the title, Finding Dory. They basically decided to tell the exact same story, except focus their lens on a different character. This movie could have been much better if they had pivoted to a different story altogether... And cut the runtime down by 15 minutes or so. Actually... it wasn't too long of a movie, but it felt that way. Especially, because the film followed the same formula and hit repeat. "Things look bleak. Oh hey! Things are looking up. Aww geez. They're screwed. No wait! They're not!" It just became too much once the final ridiculous obstacle appeared.

Cody: Well yes, actually, I do agree. Toy Story 2 is the exception, not the rule. Definitely not as much star power in Dory, but we do have some fun actor pairings! We've got the aforementioned Ed O'Neil and Ty Burrell of Modern Family, but also Idris Elba and Dominic West, who formerly starred in The Wire together, playing sea lion buddies. It was also fun to hear the familiar voices of SNLers Kate McKinnion and Bill Hader (obligatory Tulsa shout out). Although, Hanks and Allen, they are not. Some combination of Ty Burrell's awesomeness and the writing of his character was the best piece of this movie. I laughed the hardest at jokes or moments involving Bailey the beluga whale. Ultimately, I think you bring up the best point here. It would have been more fun to see them take it in a new direction. It's tough to make a movie that is really similar to an original without it feeling stale. I'm still overall pleased with this movie. However, I have one bone to pick. This takes place one year after the events of Finding Nemo. Why is Nemo still a child fish? Furthermore, what happened to Marlin's face? He looks like a grandpa fish now. If we can't have realistic fish aging in film, then what can we have? What can we have, Roy?

Roy: A movie that is charming and not terrible to sit through. Although there's a good chance you will feel like you're sitting through Finding Nemo for the billionth time even though you are not. But that is all we are going to get.


We are going to spoil this movie for you. We are going to spoil it all over the place. There is going to be so much spoiled that if this review was in your fridge and you opened the Tupperware to take a whiff, you would immediately vomit... You have been warned.

Roy: The whole story really left me underwhelmed. An adult fish who can't remember anything is searching for her parents like she's a missing child, but begins to remember everything the moment she swims into something blocking her progress from finding said family. The deus ex machina was on full display here. Even the great eagles from The Lord of the Rings were watching this movie and did a face palm. Or... Face wing? Sorry, no good way to be clever there.  It's like the writers said to themselves, "How do we get her closer to her goal when she has amnesia? Oh I got it! Her memory will come back in fragments anytime she gets even remotely stuck!" It was lazy writing. And that isn't even my biggest problem with this movie. Look, maybe I'm just the cranky old guy yelling at kids to get off of my lawn, but there is one constant theme that ran through this movie that bugged the algae out of me. So, there is this new thing the kids these days are doing called science. Science tells us that fish cannot move or really do anything at all outside of water except, you know, die. I'm not looking for complete realism in this movie. But, the fact that crossing a bajillion different barriers where water was no where to be found was not an issue in the slightest, really began to grind my gears. In fact, it's almost like the writers specifically created the character Hank to be a glorified taxi driver. It's a good thing Ed O'Neil kept things interesting by being great because if that character was flat this whole movie could have really sucked.

Cody: Speaking of impossible tasks and Hank the taxi driver, who had the bright idea to have an octopus drive a truck? Most of the movie featured adorably impossible tasks, but that scene went from adorable to absurd. They officially jumped the shark. Or, flipped the octopus? Whatever. Too far Pixar, too far. So I guess I'm saying overall I agree with your point. They took a few too many liberties. We don't have to attribute this sentiment with us being old. We both just recently watched and thoroughly enjoyed Zootopia, so obviously we're capable of appreciating an animated movie (another free movie review for you from your friends here at The COARD). In comparison to Nemo, Dory was successful in changing up the setting. It was a smart play to make their initial journey across the ocean a relatively short scene, then spending the majority of the time in the marine institute. Unlike you, I didn't get too worked up over Hank carrying Dory around in a coffee pot or cup or whatever it might have been. The maze and journey within the institute was fun, and this was also where we got to experience the aforementioned Destiny and Bailey, the two best characters in the movie. Had the entire thing taken place in the ocean, it really would have been identical to Finding Nemo, but the new setting was enough to make it fresh and fun.

Roy: I was glad that they changed the scenery by going to the marine institute. And having self-aware Sigourney Weaver as the PA announcer was a nice touch. But now this brings me to yet another problem I had with this movie. Apparently all marine institutes and aquariums filter their dirty water right into the ocean, and fish can swim in and out at will? ...What? This raises all sorts of questions. How do they keep the water in the institute clean if it is connected to the Del Mar bay? Since when did Del Mar, CA even have a bay? If a beluga whale uses his sonar to see through the pipes of a marine institute and no fish where there to hear it, did he in fact make any sound at all? I will leave it to you to find these answers because I flat out don't care. And don't even get me started on Hank the Octopus literally driving a truck. You read that sentence right. An octopus drove a truck to save his fish friends. How do you come back from that? The answer is you don't. And the writers knew what they were doing, which is why it was the bit that closed the movie down. All I can say is, Dory and the gang were really lucky the highway the truck was headed down went parallel to and over the bay, otherwise Dory and Hank would have had to take an Uber to get back to the ocean. And no, I'm not putting that past the writers.

An octopus, operating the pedals and steering wheel
with tentacles, while being directed by a
fish sloshing about in an open container

Cody: How dare you besmirch Bailey and his beautiful gift! He was everything in this movie! Everything! I know literally nothing about beluga whales, so as far as I'm concerned, that was a barely exaggerated portrayal of their abilities. If you want to complain about the "whales," then you may want to mention that the reason a whale shark is called a whale shark, and not a shark whale, is in fact because they are sharks the size of whales. Soooo Destiny would have straight chomped Dory without a second thought. All they would have found of Dory would have been her little yellow fin floating in some shark excrement. Unless Destiny was one of those Australian vegan sharks from Nemo, but seeing as she "spoke whale," I'm guessing they were content just pretending her species wasn't literally misrepresented. You're right about the holes in the marine institute, but you missed a big one. Apparently the large "whale" enclosures are so poorly made that the inhabitants can jump out straight into the ocean? That's just downright irresponsible. So wow, yea, we really got on a roll poking holes in this movie. It was as easy to rip this movie as it was for Hank to somehow successfully navigate a truck using only the terrible directions of Dory. I don't feel great about the public shaming, because I really did enjoy Finding Dory. Even if the only way she was ever found by Marlin and Nemo was by the help of a mentally handicapped bird that seemingly telepathically knew where they wanted to go. Shoot. I did it again. I have to quit this review before I convince myself I didn't actually like this movie.

The COARD: The Lobster

This is a commentary on The Lobster, a film by Yorgos Lanthimos. "Spoilers" will be interwoven throughout this review. We predominantly split into sections here at The COARD, but we also tend to review formulaic movies. Today, we review a film. There are no key plot points to spoil here; only art to discuss.

Cody: In The Lobster, Lanthimos takes us inside his mind for a bleak and satirical view on society and mating norms. The directing and cinematography in this film created the dystopian setting that allowed the viewers to enter into a world that was different than our own. It was obvious to anyone with artistic perception that Lanthimos wanted this to be a recognizable but differentiated version of our own reality. Similar to how a caricature resembles the subject in a distorted manner, so too did the world in this film resemble, yet distort, the society in which we all live. The characters were simultaneously lively, dry, and exaggerated. There wasn't any explanation given about where these people were or what the purpose was, and that was expected. This was a film, not a movie. Movies hold your hand and walk you through a cookie cutter plot. Film asks questions and expects you to interpret the answers with little guidance. I may not have all the answers on The Lobster, but it cannot be denied that it was art. And art is good.

Roy: This film was as beautiful as it was disconcerting. There were not any grandiose shots of landscape or scenery. The cinematography in this film was simple, and yet striking. There was nothing special to gawk at, and yet I couldn't look away. Part of the reason for this was the disturbing premise. Lanthimos brought us into a world where it was illegal to be single. You may wonder why that would be? Rest assured, if you are wondering that you have already proven yourself not to be up to the task of understanding this film. Good effort though. In The Lobster, people who are single are a drain on society. They do nothing but fill it up with their lonely selfishness. Thus, society has found a way to make these people useful enough to be able to contribute. One is given a brief period to find a mate, otherwise one is turned into an animal. And if that were not enough, the prospect of finding a mate is more difficult than expected. One cannot just pick a mate like one is picking a ripe banana. No, one must have something in common with the potential mate. Only then can both parties agree that they are a match for one another. The brilliance of this film is that Lanthimos showed us a world where for the first time, society puts the same amount of pressure on people to pair up that we often put on ourselves. Too often, people choose a partner that they know is wrong for them, or they completely ignore red flag after red flag for no other reason than they do not want to be alone. The Lobster takes this a step further. In this story, not only has society deemed a person without a partner as utterly useless, they have taken drastic steps to enforce this belief. It's an external view of an internal state that has become commonplace in our world. While dependence on one another is a beautiful and necessary thing, we should not sacrifice our independence in its place. It would not be untruthful to state that our society has regressed to a point where co-dependence has hit an unhealthy level (i.e. all social media). I applaud the bravery of Lanthimos for showing us what that really looks like.

Cody: I was enthralled by the inclusion of the characters searching for their like trait in another. A microcosm of the way we view relationships. "Oh, we have this in common, so we must be a good pair." All without digging deeper into what actually makes a relationship tick. The petty jealousy when a character found that someone else may have something in common with his mate. The lying by another character about possessing a trait in order to find a match. Sound familiar to anybody? That's because people will often go to any length to avoid being alone. Yes, this film had a morose take on relationships, but Lanthimos did not stop there. People who chose the single life received the same exaggerated treatment. Closing themselves off from feelings with the punishment of physical pain should they catch themselves drifting in the vague direction of love. Whether they've been hurt in the past, or consider themselves above the current state of relationships, The Lobster pokes at the determined zealot nature of self imposed relationship celibates. This was a key piece of the film to me. Had it been a bleak attack on relationships, it might have come across more arrogant. Which isn't to say something can't be both arrogant and great. I can think of at least one example where excellence and arrogance coexist perfectly. It's just that the balance between the satire on single and matched people allowed for an honest interpretation, rather than leaving you feeling defensive about one side or the other.

Roy: I want to explore something you touched on. In this world there are two factions. The couples and the loners. Because it is illegal to be alone, the loners are forced to live in the woods like animals and hide from the world. Which is ironic because that is the very punishment they are attempting to escape. This movie deals heavily in the exploration of the emotion love, but there is one other emotion that gets just as much screen time and is a constant presence in this film. Fear. Fear is thick in the air during every second of this film. Whether it is single people attempting to find a mate before their deadline is up, or loners falling in love and hiding it from their group, or the fear of giving up something of unmeasured value in order to stay connected to the one you love... Fear is everywhere in The Lobster. It was fear that drove both of these factions to punish those who were different. Conformity was the gospel in this world, and non-conformists were the pariahs. That is why this film was so unsettling. It was a love story, but make no mistake. It was dark. It was the juxtaposition of love and darkness where the beauty in this film was found. While companionship was the expected standard in this world, true love was nowhere to be found. Until it was. At which point I found myself desperately hoping that love would somehow survive.

Cody: The lengths people will go to fit into societal norms was on full display here. One man gives himself regular bloody noses in order to pair with his mate who has legitimate naturally occurring bloody noses. I know the unmeasured value of which you speak, but before I touch on the open ended finale for this film, I want to discuss the fascinating war between the factions. The symbolism was most clear to me here. The relationship faction hunted and captured single people and turned them into animals to be sent into the forest. They misunderstood and feared those that would choose to live alone, so they forced them to be simpler and lower, as in animals. The single people fought back, not with violence, but with sabotage. The loners didn't know how better to punish the lovers than to expose the frailties in their relationships, thus leading them down the path to being loners. There isn't a right or wrong side here, but the differences are interesting. I repeat, there is no right or wrong side. That's actually the entire point. Neither faction understands their opposite, and their misunderstanding breeds animosity. Let's all just agree to be more accepting of people who are different than us.

      So back to the ending of the film. Here's a quick breakdown for those of you that haven't seen it and want to understand this last bit of the discussion. The two lovers who were supposed to be loners are discovered by their faction to be not loners, but in fact, lovers. This is a criminal offense. The punishment ends up being that the woman in the pair has her eyes surgically blinded. Because society has rules about matches, the man has a choice, he can either leave her and start again, or he can also go blind and stay with her. We see the man sitting in front of a mirror with a steak knife pointed at his eyeball. The film closes with the woman sitting and waiting for him to come back from the bathroom, after presumably violently blinding himself to be with her. Which choice does he make? Which would you make? True love or sight? Loaded question. I'm not going to guess at what choice the man makes, because Lanthimos doesn't want us to. There are two ways to interpret this. How far would you be willing to go for love? How far can society's expectations push you?

Roy: While you may not be comfortable guessing at the ending, I thought it was less ambiguous. I had no doubt that the man was about to puncture both of his eyes in order to be with the woman he loved. Their whole plan was to leave the loners and rejoin society as a couple, which they could now do. The entire film, this individual desired more than anything to find someone. He even pretended to be a psychopath just to find a match. Finding someone with anti-social personality disorder was preferable to being alone. He only joined the loners because he no longer had any choice in the matter. He loved his match more than anything and seemed completely willing to lose his sight if it meant he got to be with her forever. Lanthimos created a more powerful ending by not showing us the result of his actions. The film closed with the woman sitting at a table in a restaurant patiently waiting for her lover to blind himself. We heard no screams, had no evidence he was carrying out his intentions. Maybe it's the optimist in me, but I have no doubt that he blinded himself for love. A lobster wasn't just his choice of animal in the event the worst happened. Lobsters have terrible eyesight, and many of them are completely blind. Let us not forget that poor eyesight is what matched these people to begin with. And while lobsters do not mate for life, which is a common misconception the world has thanks to a sitcom that is decidedly not art, a cursory Google search proves people continue to equate that with lobsters. Viewing the end of the film from that point of view, I don't know how one could come to any other conclusion. Love wins. Even in the darkest of worlds, where happiness is the exception to the rule, it is nice to know that love endures.

Cody: I know how one could come to another conclusion. By not looking through a rose colored glass point of view and instead being open to different interpretations. See? That simple.

Roy: Or... one could stop trying so hard to be a hipstered up tortured soul and could possibly recognize they are actually super close minded when it comes to interpreting art. 

The COARD: Me Before You

As always, we are not going to spoil this movie for you right away. We will discuss the acting, overall story, music, and anything else we can think of before we move onto the best part of this review, which unfortunately for you spoiler wimps, will reside in the spoiler section. This movie has a heavy topic which cannot be removed from the review. So try to enjoy the next 50 words or so that are spoiler free. 

Roy: Well uh. Emotions were there the whole time. Also! My throat really started hurting at one point. You know. And Fashion. And. Well. It was like a really weird and kind Game of Thrones episode.

Cody: Yep. Good. Better at some points. There were things. Stuff. Ya know. Feels were had. So on. Yep.

Roy: *Roy impatiently taps his foot while glancing at his watch and wonders if enough time has passed where they can have a good discussion about this intersting film. He supposes not and that he will be forced to actually say something about this movie that won't ruin it for our dozens of faithful readers....*

If you're not immediately enchanted by her, then you have no soul

Ok. Well. There was a lot to like about this movie actually. And I am going to start with the music. The film makers really understood the mood they were trying to strike with particular scenes and found the perfect songs to pair said scenes with. Every time a song began to play I found myself feeling the desired emotion the movie makers wanted me to feel. So bravo people. Good work there. The performances from every actor in this movie were great. Literally. Every person who wandered on the screen made me believe they were in fact these characters they were portraying. But the person who left everyone in her brightly colored dust was Emilia Clarke. Good lord this woman is a fine actress. I have seen here in only three things. This, Game of Thrones, and Terminator Genisys. Stop Laughing. It wasn't that bad. And she was a bright spot in that movie. I have been fully invested in all of her characters. She is as genuine as she is refreshing. And as Lou Clark she was adorable. There is no other word. I took my wife to this movie and three minutes in she looks at me and says, "She is so cute."

Behold, the eyes of a madman

Cody: Nothing makes me more proud than seeing my long tutelage of Roy in the area of movie scores finally paying dividends. "but Cody, I was paying attention to movie scores before you were in preschool," Roy is likely to say. Blasphemy. Of course you noticed them, but it was I that showed you time and time again the impact a score can have on a film. Bravo, indeed. Emilia, Emilia, Emilia. What a wondrous surprise. As you somewhat alluded to, she has a limited IMDb resume. This is her fourth feature length film credit at age 29. Let's hope that number doubles in the next decade. She was stupendous. If you watch Game of Thrones, you know Emilia as the iron willed Queen and Mother of Dragons who demands respect from all she meets. The bubbly and heart-warming Lou Clark is on the entire opposite end of the spectrum, and I bought into this character every moment of the movie. We just talked about how Jennifer Lawrence always plays Jennifer Lawrence in her movies (which is fine by the way, because everybody likes J-Law being J-Law). Emilia Clarke has character range. I don't know enough to say if she is a true method actor (see: Lewis, Daniel Day) (seriously though, take four minutes to read that page. Dude is insane.), but she certainly became her character. Lou Clark was adorable. How often do you smile at a movie? Laugh, sure, but what about irresistibly smiling at a character? Lou Clark made me smile with ease, and because of that, she made the movie.

Roy: Does everyone know that I taught Cody everything he knows about everything? Because I did. He might claim to have had some knowledge about things before me, and that might even be true. But I am stating an unequivocal fact that Cody owes me thanks for everything he knows. And because I've officially posted it on all of the internets, it is now complete fact.............  Anyway. Not to beat a dead horse after gushing over The Nice Guys but Me Before You also nailed the chemistry factor. The actors played well off of one another. I believed these two people had fallen in love. Sam Claflin displayed a slow warming to Lou perfectly. A man who has to play a quadriplegic would run into a few challenges on set, namely not being able to use body language. So much of how we communicate to one another is done non-verbally, and Claflin did not have that luxury. He told a story with only his face and his words and should be applauded. He could not have done a better job.

Cody: I...I can't. I'm not going to dignify that with a response (everyone please note that I am being the bigger man here. Did you note it? Good. Taking the high road is pointless without credit). I did think that Claflin did a stand up job *cue rim shot* in his role, but I'll forget it in comparison to Clarke's show stealing performance. So should you see this movie? If you want a charming and simple story, you're golden. If you want that simple story to make you weep, you're better off with the recent The Fault in Our Stars. If you want a realistic plot, you may want to look any of 1,000 different places. Charming, simple, just enough emotion, and characters played superbly, but not realistic enough to completely suck me in. Writing vs Acting. Writing kept the movie from reaching its ceiling, but acting made it watchable nonetheless.

Enough. We can no longer go on politely speaking about this movie in hushed tones and writing drivel; yes, drivel about what was good without talking about the entire point of this movie. So if you do not want to know what really happened in this film. Go away.... But you know, please come back for all of our other cool stuff! 

Roy: I really think the best way to bring us all up to speed is to just explain the story in it's most basic form. Extremely handsome, rich, charming, and athletic man tragically becomes a quadriplegic. He decides to end his life through an assisted suicide firm in Sweden. Mom brings in adorable girl to care for him hoping it would change his mind. He falls in love with adorable girl. Decides to die anyway. The end. Are we all on the same page? Excellent. Cody, I'm going to disagree with you here. I thought the writing was really good. But I can't pretend I'm not biased. You give me a story about Brits and I'm sold. I enjoyed this movie the whole time I was watching it. I enjoyed watching Lou slowly work her way into Will's life and help him to see the value in it. I thought the story was all the stronger by the fact that he still wanted out of that life. It made a better story. Would we have smiled if he decided to live with Lou forever? Of course we would have. But his explanation on the beach when he told her that he was still going to end his life really got me thinking. And as a man I felt it was easy to empathize with him.

Cody: Well the story was charming, and I gave it credit as such. It was the overall writing that was lacking. I'm differentiating between the love story and the path to get there, I suppose. Really though, it all came down to one sequence of events for me to be all, "meh." Will and Lou have their lovely wedding date experience, but Will gets diagnosed with pneumonia right after that. Lou rushes to the hospital to be at his side, and you can tell they are truly in love. The feels are being had left and right at this point. You're up, then you're down, and you're feeling the whole time. Suddenly Will is okay. Wait, not only is he okay, he has been medically cleared to go on an impromptu extravagant and romantic vacation! What? Why? Lou, you love him. He loves you. Why do you need to go to what appears to be a tropical island for both of you to confirm this? And look. I get it. This is a movie. It never claimed to be real life, but it had something real going at that point. After the montage of exciting vacation events, I couldn't shake the feeling that I was suddenly watching a British Fifty Shades of Grey. Naive girl and naive girl. Handsome rich brooding guy and handsome rich brooding guy. Sadist and quadriplegic (okay, those might be a bit different). It was all forced and unnecessary. We had our love story; it didn't require lavishness. Once I was momentarily snapped from the spell of Clarke and Caflin, there wasn't enough time to bring me back in. The "magical moment trip" is one movie trope I could really do without.

Roy: You seriously did not think that I was just going to let you get away with publicly admitting that you not only watched Fifty Shades of Grey, but you thought it was one of the best films of 2015. Don't bother going back through your paragraph to find the evidence. It's there. Trust me. But you're right. When I found out that he was magically cleared to go on this vacation I had a moment where I thought, "Wait... what?" But that odd addition aside it still had great moments. And I get why they did it. I think they needed to show us his resolve. If after this magnificent time with Lou, and admitting to how much he's in love with her, he still wants to die? He sold me on it. I cannot fault a man for not wanting to watch the woman he loves spoon feed him the rest of his life. Not to mention everything else involved in caring for a men who cannot feel anything from the shoulders down. As much as I cannot imagine making the same decision, I found myself not being able to blame him for it either.

Cody: I'm not going to apologize for having perfect movie comparisons and generally knowing more about movies than you. I can see it really upset you that I nailed that reference, but I'm not sorry. You should have gotten there first. Speaking of getting there first, poor Neville Longbottom. He went and got hot, and he still is being put in the most unfortunate situations. Dumped after 7 years for a guy who can't use his limbs, that can't feel good. Whether or not the movie was trying to make a point about assisted suicide (it unabashedly was), I felt his decision wasn't all that important. Sure, it was sad to see the final scene with him, but that wasn't the takeaway I had from this movie. For the first time ever, I unequivocally nailed my haiku. Going with the lyrics from Spirits by The Strumbellas as my title was a fantastic choice. I knew the movie was going to contain quality of life tones, I just didn't realize it would be Lou who learned how to live, while Will stayed pat on his stance on life. Good twist, Me Before You. Life is out there people, go live it!

Roy: I'm glad you brought that up.  One of the things that was interesting about this movie was the fact that there was no bad guy. In most romances there is at least one jerk lurking around the corner waiting to pounce on the innocent beauty. But that wasn't the case with this film. I honestly felt bad for every person in this movie. Neville Longbottom wasn't a bad guy. Sure he was a little self absorbed, but part of the blame for that can be laid at the feet of our sweet Lou. She dated this guy for seven years and was content to swim along in his wake, just happy that they were together. It's not his fault that she began spending all of her time with a man who was easily ten times his better despite not being able to move his limbs. It was just one of those situations where there was nothing he could do. And this isn't the only situation like this. It was easy to feel like Will's best friend and ex-girlfriend were terrible people for marrying each other after the accident. However, it was made very clear that Will pushed both of them away. It only makes sense that those two would cling to one another in a time of loss and crisis. I don't think they were the bad guys. I think the only bad guys in this movie are spinal cord injuries.

Cody: ..and motorcyclists. It's not enough that they constantly endanger themselves, now they've ruined poor Will's life. Selfish wankers. I agree though, everyone was likable enough. In that sense, the movie did a good job of making things seem real. The best friend and ex-girlfriend was a bit much. It might be the proud Anglophile in me or maybe it's the fact that I've been cultivating my cinematic expertise so fervently recently, but I wanted this to be more than the typical American young adult romance film. Great acting, likable characters, charming story, forgettable film. There's your eight word tagline, America! And by America, I of course mean the tens of people reading right now...but still!

Roy: I have to agree with you yet again. If I want to watch a Nicholas Sparks novel turned into a movie I can close my eyes and throw a stick and hit one. I wanted Me Before You to not fall into that same category. A feat that was proved impossible to me by the fact that almost every person in the world I spoke to about this movie had the same response, "Oh! Is that the new Nicholas Sparks?!" ....... I weep for our society.

Cody: I won't stand for it any longer! I vow that our next movie, nay, film will be an entirely original work of art!

The COARD: X-Men Apocalpyse

We solemnly swear that we will not spoil X-Men Apocalypse for you. What follows is a spoiler-free review and overview of the movie. We will then get into all the action and plot points (assuming there were any worth mentioning...not to give away my opinions or anything, but...yea...)

Cody: For the first time in the revamped COARD, my opinion of a movie exactly matches my preview haiku. Boy, that was a whole lot of empty destruction. Did I enjoy this movie? Yes, sure I did. The X-Men are freaking cool and the new cast of actors is filled with big names and mostly big performances. Michael Fassbender continues to be phenomenal as Magneto, and he isn't the only one worthy of a shout out for his acting chops in this. Those couple sentences will likely be the nicest you get from me in this review. It wasn't like this was a particularly bad movie; it just wasn't particularly good either. Remember when Roy mentioned all the things he has disdain for in the Avengers films? That's exactly how I feel about this X-Men film. It was two hours and twenty minutes long, and that was somehow simultaneously too long and too short. They tried to fit so much into one movie, that some pieces felt a little haphazard. Meanwhile, some of the peripheral characters and scenes could have been cut. So that's where I'm at with it, let's see if Roy was on a similar page.

Roy: Well this is awkward... I was fully prepared to lay out a scenario in which I was going to explain to everyone that this movie was much better than anything the Avengers had done. But then I read your paragraph. And you're not wrong. How can I just trash Avengers for all of their empty destruction and action and walk away from the X-Men feeling completely different about a movie that broke all of the same rules? I believe I have arrived at an answer. It came down to two things. One of them completely drives the other. Acting and story. As Cody said, the acting is great in this movie. Fassbender is brilliant, but so is James McAvoy. He nails the humanity in Charles Xavier which is the core of who that character is. The performances in this film drive the story of these characters and it's easy to look past all of the gratuitous destruction because it is done to help tell an interesting story. Is it too much? Absolutely. But they have something the Avengers didn't. X-Men has a good story to tell. Where the Avengers have no story at all.

Cody: I wholeheartedly disagree with Roy on the point about the story. I'm going to hold out until the spoiler section so I can fully eviscerate his misguided opinions. I will give McAvoy his credit for another quality performance as Professor Xavier. Going back to the original X-Men films with Sir Ian Mckellen and Patrick Stewart, X-Men has always been at its best when Xavier and Magneto share the screen. This remains true with McAvoy and Fassbender. Something about two men who are quasi-enemies with true respect for each other. It just works. So there, I said some more nice things about the movie, even if I did have to go back to 2000 to make it work. Acting wise, you know who seemed really out of place? Jennifer Lawrence. Obviously, Lawrence is a talented actress, but she's never really fit as Mystique. I'm willing to accept this point as pure personal opinion, because I'm about to dig into how I think the character should be played. Lawrence brings a certain bravado to every role she plays, whereas, Mystique takes a bit more finesse. I mean, for goodness sake, look at the character's name! That alone suggests she should be played less audacious and more sly. And yes, I realize that I'm writing about the complexities of a blue mutant lady. I can pontificate on literally any subject, and in the words of Ron Burgundy, don't act like you're not impressed.

Roy: While I mentally prepare to destroy Cody and his unbridled pretentiousness later in the review, I will agree with him about J-Law. I kept waiting for her to begin shouting that she has to save Peeta and then run off screen to do just that. Is it because she has become type-cast as Katniss Everdeen? No. But Cody said something to me the other day that fits perfectly in this discussion. It feels like the majority of the roles she plays are Jennifer Lawrence doing Jennifer Lawrence doing her character. And maybe I am being unfair and painting her with too broad of a brush but she definitely feels this way when playing Mystique. Sooo... Is it cool to gush over Evan Peters as Quicksilver yet? Because let me tell you, this guy stole the entire movie. And we already stated how well the performances (minus Mystique) were in this film, so it was not an easy thing to do. Every time Peters was on screen I found myself wishing he had more screen time. He hit all of his lines perfectly and also had a fairly interesting part of the story... Yes. STORY Cody, to tell.

Cody: It's like you are begging me to drive my spoiler train right into Spoilerville and crash right into the Spoilerville town square killing hundreds in a fiery explosion after the spoiler train comes off the tracks because of a loose bolt because trains are the most dangerous evil creations of all time. Wait. What just happened? It's like my thought process got...derailed *cue rim shot.* Anyway, Quicksilver. Peters was fantastic, as he was in Days of Future Past. He's one of those actors that you can tell had a ton of fun portraying the character, and that kind of energy is contagious for the audience. I wish he had all of the screen time. All of it. Make a freaking Quicksilver movie. Why not? It would probably fall backwards into $100 million just by being a Marvel/X-Men movie. Since it's a Marvel movie, they could probably write the script, film it, and have it in post-production by August.

Roy: It's almost like you chose to write 100 words of complete nothing about trains in a feeble attempt to avoid talking about a movie that you claim to "like," even though all you have been doing is pooping in its cheerios...

Cody: I'm just here so I don't get fined.



Warning. You are about to wander into spoiler territory. For the rest of this review you will be subjected to Cody whining about what he believes is a sub-par story, while Roy will save the day by poking holes in Cody's pathetic and illogical arguments. All of this will take place while discussing details of the movie. You've been warned.

Roy: Before our review gets hijacked by Cody and turns into the Thunderdome I am going to hit on the particular bits I liked the best. Literally any point where time was slowed and they showed Quicksilver running around in normal speed saving people or fixing things was just the best. In particular when the school was blowing up and he ran through every room and saved everyone, including any and all goldfish, before the explosion claimed any lives.... Well, except poor stupid Havoc, but he can't save people from being idiots. I know we said it earlier but we need more of Peters. It was nice to see Sophie Turner play a character where she wasn't completely useless; because for five seasons of Game of Thrones that is all she has had to work with, and I think she is a really good young actress. Speaking of useless. The team members that Apocalypse surrounded himself with not named Magneto. Storm who spent most of the final battle just watching things happen, Angel who had metal wings that shot knives at people, and Psyloche, who was a big disappointment because her super power was being a less cool purple-electric Indiana Jones. It reminded me of what a high school basketball team looks like with a blue chip recruit. They can throw any random JV squad trash on the court and as long as Magneto is up there handling his business they have a shot to win.

They didn't even try to hide it

Cody: Storm was in this movie? I thought the three bolts of lightning that appeared throughout the whole movie were just random! But for real. Storm has always been kind of useless, and nothing changed with her introduction to this new series. And about Havoc, correct. You can't fix stupid. I could watch the school explosion scene on a loop 20 straight times, and it wouldn't get old. Easily the best part of the entire movie. Which is saying something considering this movie was filled with amazing and original scenes. Wait a second. No it wasn't! Look. I'm already on record saying this was a decent and entertaining movie. What I haven't said is that it is decent and entertaining mostly because it is nearly a carbon copy of past X-Men movies, particularly X-Men Last Stand. Had Phoenix taken over Jean's powers (which she was getting very birdlike there at the end), then this would have been basically the same movie. Only Wolverine wouldn't have been there to kill her in heartbreaking fashion. Plus there's the "Magneto is more misunderstood than evil" story line. Of course... Then Charles has to believe in the good in him, because that's what Charles does. That dead horse continues to be beaten to a pulp. This isn't to say that remaking a movie and pretending it is something new means it can't be successful. After all, everybody seemed to like Star Wars: A Newer Hope.

Roy: Woah... I can't... It's just that... I mean. I know you're not intentionally trying chuck our beloved Star Wars into a dumpster fire but it feels like that is exactly what you're doing. Or maybe... you knew I would lose all perspective and run off on a tangent explaining that we all need to just be thankful Disney and J.J. rescued us from the dumpster fire the prequels actually were and be happy that Star Wars is back...But I'm not going to do that. Clever Cody. You almost won. But yes, a recurring theme in X-Men is Magneto and Charles' anxiety over the fact that humanity will never truly embrace the mutants and Magneto is more willing to fight a war to insure his survival while Charles takes an optimistic approach. But that is interesting. Further more, I do not believe we have ever seen Magneto live the Charles Xavier method before. Watching him try to live a normal life in a charming Polish village only to watch his adorable family die at the hands of idiot and puny humans was one of the high points of the whole movie. It makes him even more of a sympathetic character than he was to begin with. I think this revamped X-men trilogy does an incredible job with Magneto. Don't get me wrong. Magnedalf (Ian Mckellan) was great. But the story is better in the revamped series.

Cody: I would have gladly sacrificed this entire review just for the satisfaction of watching you tear yourself apart trying to defend both Star Wars and X-Men at the same time. I will give you credit; you found a good original piece of this movie. I have not seen Magneto that dedicated to living a human life. And! He only gave up that human life because he used his powers to save someone from certain death. Freaking humans, man. They give the mutants so many reasons to hate them. So, well done with that point. To counter, I'm going to bombard you with a list of pointless things from this movie, in no particular order. Moira Mactaggert, Charles having a schoolboy crush on Moira, Quicksilver being Magneto's son but being too big of a chicken to tell him, Olivia Munn, force feeding William Stryker and Wolverine into the story, and, of course, everything Scott Summers has done ever, This is where I tie it back to my initial point. Let's get rid of Moira, Stryker, and Wolverine. That probably saves us 25-30 minutes. Now the movie is under two hours, but we could push it back up over two hours with a dash of Quicksilver and a whole bunch of better plot surrounding our main villain, Apocalypse. Maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, we add a scene where Apocalypse further explains how he has controlled life throughout the millennia. I get that he wants world domination, but I think there could be more motive. Magneto is such a rich character, whereas Apocalypse was kind of blah. So anyway, in this scene, Apocalypse explains he has to have a mutant sacrifice as part of his ancient rituals. He then vaporizes Scott Summers as a sacrifice in the name of the one true god, himself. See? I just made this movie way better!

Roy: I also have to concede. You picked the most meaningless part of the movie in bringing up Moira Mactaggert. I thought we were done with her because she disappeared after X-Men: First Class. But all of a sudden she inadvertently causes the destruction of the world because she let sunlight into an underground cavern... Maybe my "this is a good story" argument isn't holding up as well as I initially planned. BUT! She is a secondary character who doesn't matter. Anytime we are back to our two main characters things were good. And yeah, Apocalypse was kinda meh. But I do disagree with you on the Quicksilver being Magneto's son aspect. I think that was a nice touch, although there was no reason for him to not tell Magneto. Also I'm a sucker for Wolverine. I love that we saw him in this movie with adamantium claws intact! Seeing him really didn't add more than five minutes to this movie. They had to escape from the military anyway. Why not give us five good minutes of Logan ripping the innards out of over-matched soldiers? Everyone wins there. Speaking of every one winning. The Cyclops human sacrifice is a brilliant idea. How much less pouty and angsty would the mansion be if he just wasn't there anymore? Then Logan and Jean could finally be together they way they should be! Excellent idea.

Cody: I should clarify, I didn't hate Wolverine's appearance. Because. Wolverine is freaking awesome. But why must the military capture them in every single movie? Why must Stryker always be involved? Couldn't they have created drama in a different way this time around? There was really no explanation of why it was specifically Stryker's group that captured them. Basically they wanted to bring in familiar characters, so Stryker captured them, and of course he has Wolverine locked up. But it sure was fun to see Wolverine go on that gratuitous over-the-top killing spree. Speaking of over the top, the level of destruction in this movie. Was that Man of Steel I just watched? Charles Xavier believes in a world where humans and mutants can live in harmony. Magneto and Apocalypse just crushed that world into oblivion. There literally can't be a movie after this one. They destroyed everything. It's all gone. Magneto pulled up pieces of the actual earth and ruined entire cities. A single mutant. Suddenly, I'm sympathizing with the humans. How can you let these people roam around unchecked when one of them is capable of destroying the planet. Where do you go from here? Do they travel to outer space or something? They've painted themselves into a corner. That was about as grandiose as you could possibly get. The world decided to put shackles on the Avengers because they dropped a city from the sky. What does the world do when a group of people nearly rip the planet apart? In real life, you would Navy Seal that group and shoot on site.

Roy: Somewhere Kathryn Bigelow is reading this review and started working on her next script. Way to just hand more money to Hollywood bro. Yes. you are correct. And this is a problem that is larger than X-Men and unfortunately is a by product of the superhero genre which has taken over the world. The point of superhero movies is to see them do cool stuff typical humans cannot do. This can't be done without massive destruction. As these movies get larger they have to keep pushing the envelope. The pendulum really can't swing any farther. At least with Man of Steel there was a purpose. They knew they were gong over the top with the destruction but that was done to set up Dawn of Justice. At least there was a plan involved and it was part of a larger narrative. It's possible that is the plan for the next one but at this point that theme has been done by Batman vs. Superman and The Avengers. X-men missed the boat on that being an original take. In the final scene, Jean and Magneto are repairing Xavier manor in a matter of seconds. Here's just a thought... Maybe they should have done that to the city they destroyed fighting each other first? Maybe they did and we just weren't shown that? Who knows. As much as I like this movie. I'm glad that we are done with superhero movies for the summer. Maybe we wont get any more unrealistic destruction. .......Crap. Just checked our schedule. Looks like we are going to be forced to deal with this issue three  more times this summer at least. Maybe we should write a movie where architects and general contractors take over the world because they are basically the new world's currency. At least that would be believable.