Skip to main content

X-Men: Apocalypse Review - X-Mess


X-Men: Apocalypse is in a really tricky situation. Not only does it have to top the fantastic X-Men: Days of Future Past, but it also has to compete with the outstanding Civil War and the star power of (the otherwise okay) Batman V Superman. Does it succeed? Err…

Okay, honestly, I really enjoyed this film. For one, James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are still brilliant at their respective roles, Professor Xavier and Magneto. Xavier comes off as far more human than I think I’ve ever seen him, especially in a brilliant scene between him and Rose Byrne’s character, Moira, in which he does a terrible job of hiding the fact that he fancies her. It gives the character a much more realistic appearance when he’s given a flaw as ordinary as being nervous around girls. Meanwhile, Magneto, or Erik Lehnsherr, is easily the best written character in the entire film. He struggles throughout the film with the way humans treat him in some really harrowing ways, meaning even when he does do all of the evil stuff he does, you really sympathise with him.

The other characters aren't as good, unfortunately, with the exception of Quicksilver of course, who is just as amazing as he was in DOFP and I still want to see more from him. Jennifer Lawrence is sort of okay as Mystique, whose character is really quite boring in this film and all the other mutants aren’t that great either. Admittedly Cyclops’s origin story is dealt with very well, but his character stays fairly underdeveloped from that point on and young Jean Grey was horrendously miscast, as she felt nothing like Famke Janssen's character in the original trilogy. Apocalypse, the big blue villain guy, is very well performed by Oscar Isaac, but he’s not a very three dimensional character and his minions (or the four horseman of the apocalypse) range from boring, but cool looking (Angel), to slightly more interesting, but less cool looking (Storm) to really boring and really stupid looking (Psylocke). The only genuinely good horseman is the aforementioned Magneto, who seems to be the only one with real motives.

There is more stuff I like, however. The film has this brilliant ‘80s movie aesthetic, as it is set in 1983 and has quite a few 80s references in it, from Quicksilver’s Pac-Man arcade machine to a surprisingly meta joke about Return of the Jedi and how the third film is always the worst (*cough* X-Men: The Last Stand *cough*). There’s another brilliant slow motion sequence with Quicksilver set entirely to Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This) and in fact generally there are a lot of really creative visuals, including one of the best X-Men opening title sequences ever that travels forward in time from ancient Egypt to ‘80s America, and the final showdown between Apocalypse and Professor X that takes place entirely inside their minds is fantastic. The final climactic fight at the end isn't all good, however. The first fifteen minutes or so is very repetitive and dull, with lots of way too similar looking shots repeating over and over and the action itself is very weightless and special effects heavy.

As a result of all this conflicting stuff, the film feels very messy. There’s so many characters that the film doesn’t have enough time to focus on the ones you really care about, like Magneto and instead focuses for way too long on ones you don’t, like Mystique. X-Men: Apocalypse would also often switch dramatically in tone, from incredibly sad to silly and comical to gritty and disturbing and then to unrealistic and flashy. The thing is though, it kind of works in the film’s favour. Avengers: Age of Ultron had a similar problem with the characters and, whilst it did do a better job at juggling them, the tone didn't jump about like mad, which is probably technically a good thing, but honestly I found the drastic changes in mood far more entertaining and I never felt myself getting bored, as I never really knew what was going to happen next, unlike Age of Ultron, which could often be a bit too predictable.

So, does it top its predecessor? No. Is it as good as Civil War? No, but it is far more entertaining than Batman V Superman and whilst it is easily director Bryan Singer’s weakest entry into the X-Men franchise, it’s still an entertaining film in its own rights, even if it is dragged down by way too many boring characters and a sluggish final showdown. In the end though, X-Men: Apocalypse takes a seat comfortably in the middle of the epic 2016 battle of the superheroes.

7.2/10

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is Nativity 3: Dude, Where's My Donkey?! Any Good?

Dude, Where's My Funny?! Nativity 3: Dude, Where's My Donkey?! - Film Review by Nathan Brooks Nativity's lack of critical success completely baffles me. I thought Nativity was a great movie. It was funny, it had more depth to it than most comedies and was overall just a fun movie. Nativity 2: Danger in the Manger's lack of critical success, I understand a lot better. I still remember it being fairly entertaining, but I was about 11 then, and I didn't have a brilliant judgement of what makes a good movie. Of what I can remember, however, it was nowhere near as good as Nativity in terms of story and character and basically everything important needed to make a good film. I also remember that they spent most of the movie in a bus. Nativity 3: Dude, Where's My Donkey is proof that the film makers have given up on trying to please the critics. This is an awful film. Nativity 2 was not a brilliant movie, but it at least kept me entertained for however long it...

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Review

Jurassic Park never needed to be a franchise. As a thriller, Jurassic Park inherently works better the more compact it is, so stretching it into multiple sequels seems rather counterproductive. Of course, I wouldn't mind if these sequels were good. Unfortunately, they are not. The Lost World , the first follow-up, does nothing new for virtually the entire film - only hinting at a distinctive identity in the final act. Jurassic Park 3 was even worse. The characters are so unengaging and the action so toothless you end it feeling like you've stared at an empty void for ninety minutes. Colin Trevorrow's 2015 sequel/reboot Jurassic World slightly reinvigorated the franchise with flashy new visuals, but it also suffered from bland characters and a muddled script. However, against all the odds, I still foolishly had my hopes up for that film’s follow-up Fallen Kingdom . I did have my reasons, to be fair. J.A. Bayona was taking over directorial duties and he's an exce...

The Complicated Entitlement of Arthur Fleck

Joker’s (Probably) Accidental Identity Politics The discourse around Joker , the Joaquin Phoenix-starring origin story of the infamous Batman villain, has been exhausting. Beginning before most people had even seen the film, battle lines were immediately drawn between those decrying its allegedly alt-right sympathies and edgy gamers convinced this was going to be the greatest film of all time. Now that it’s actually in cinemas and I’ve seen it, it’s a lot more complicated than that, even if it isn’t on purpose. To get it out of the way, Joker is a fantastically constructed film. Whilst it’s certainly derivative of other prestige pictures (Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver and King of Comedy have been regularly brought up) that doesn’t stop it from being spectacular and gripping in its own right. At the centre of it all is Phoenix, who’s performance is genuinely astonishing. The gruesome physicality he brings to the role is mesmerising, exemplified during the surreal dance sequences i...