• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

Gaith said:
Mild spoilers

I agree with the "good, not great" majority opinion. Great cast, fun characters, cool action... but there's a definite sense of wheel-spinning and plot point recycling, also. (Weapon X again, Stryker threatening the school again, Mystique shifting loyalties again, cage fighting again, Cerebro backfiring on Xavier again, forming the team again, Quicksilver single-handedly saving the day again, Cyclops' origin again, hints of Phoenix again...)

My biggest issue, though, was the weirdness of the post-1973 Magneto backstory. At the end of DoFP, with the cameras on him, he proclaimed a new day for mutants to reveal themselves, and to take up their rightful place as leaders of the world... only to abruptly retire to a humble, anonymous blue-collar life because he met K̶a̶y̶l̶a a beautiful brunette? And at the end of this movie, despite having killed a whole bunch more people, Xavier happily lets him go, rather than at the very least placing him on lifelong house arrest on the school's grounds?! Because we all know he's going to kill again; it's only a matter of time! And when he does, somebody should definitely sue the pants off the Professor.

I know nothing of the comics, but seems to me this movie should have been Magneto's (Genosha/Asteroid M/whatever) mutant utopia story, with maybe a few hints of Apocalypse as set-up for the next. I guess they could still do that story, and have Mags be the main villain, but it'd likely feel damned awkward, especially now that the X-Men are up and running again, unlike at the end of 1973, whereas Mags is just a dude in respectable civilian clothes. Indeed, the big Magneto ascendancy promised at the end of First Class has been pretty much ruined by Singer twice in a row now.

All that said, I did quite enjoy the movie, and would happily watch it again sometime. (Unlike, *cough*, BvS, *cough*.) I'm not sure what the path forward is, though: if they try to go cosmic for the next main X-Men film, it may look like a pale imitation of the MCU, which will have had two GotGs plus the Thors and first Infinity War. On the other hand, after six main Earthbound flicks, and a Big Bad as big and deadly as Apocalypse, more of the same could be just problematic. I'm far from giving up on the franchise, and look forward to seeing what's next, but it's pretty impossible to deny that the MCU has the biggest and best game in town.

My grade: B. (About as good as Civil War, which had a fresher story, but is hampered by the fact that it revolves around Bucky, the MCU's least interesting major character by far.)



Well, Gaith, I do agree for the most part, but more than recycling and wheel-spinning, having those elements back in in some way or form accomplishes, more or less intensely, what Bryan Singer said he wanted to do with this film, or else tie up every other film, and bringing elements like a cage fight, reminiscent of Wolverine's in "X-Men" or Cerebro 'breaking' out from Xavier's control does, or should do, exactly that.  Nonetheless, I absolutely agree, it is, emotionally speaking, maybe the weakest after "X-Men: The Last Stand", which did, though, as bad as it is, have its moments. I liked "Apocalypse", yet it is the less emotionally strong (a thing I believe defines comic book films largely more than action-packed, visually-stunning effects and explosions; I may actually write an article in a thread about this), yet it does again have its moments: fun, simply not "X-Men 2", "X-Men: Days of Future Past" or "X-Men".
 
Wait, I was thinking about this film again recently, and… I liked it, yes ok, it doesn’t matter, but… what about if this film had been “X-Men: Genosha” with _this_ cast.  That would have allowed this to be a much more powerful closure the First Class trilogy, with the true rise of Magneto, whereas now, this film seems so much a standalone, big finale to the whole series more than a sequel to “X-Men: Days of Future Past” or “X-Men: First Class”.  What do you think?
 
Worked my way through the Blu-ray this week....

Some very nice deleted/extended scenes.  Nothing that clarifies or improves the overall plot, but really good character beats that help invest the audience more into our heroes.  All the scenes are clean, no time codes or anything, and only two have partially unfinished fx that I think a skilled editor could easily work around.  So if anyone was thinking of doing an edit, there is some very good material to work with.

Also listened to the audio commentary, hoping against hope that since Bryan Singer is such a story focused/character driven director, there would be some off screen explanation to some glaring continuity issues.  
Such as:
--20 years passing since First Class, but no real explanation why most of the characters have not physically aged.  Even a throw away line like mutants age slower than humans.  Though that would not explain the human characters looking the same too.
--Or again, the 20 year age gap and yet Scott is still Havok's younger brother when his parents looks like they are in their 40s or early 50s.  Unless they are mutants too?
--Or the most annoying plot hole, why does Stryker have Wolverine when it was Mystique at the end of DOFP???

But sadly no, nothing is said or acknowledged.

Also found it interesting that in the commentary both Singer and Kinberg comment that they think this is Jennifer Lawrence's BEST performance as Mystique.   I was like, What the...????   Are they watching the same movie I am?  I actually thought Lawrence totally phoned it in, she looked so bored throughout this movie, bringing almost no energy or texture to her scenes which completely shocked me as I consider her one of the great actors of her generation.  But when you look at her impressive body of work, and her last two outings as Mystique, she looks like she is sleepwalking by comparison.

After a second watch, the movie is still very entertaining with some great moments scattered about, though for me, the weakest of the new trilogy.   Also, on my 60inch plasma, the CGI looked pretty bad in many scenes.   In particular, the whole Cairo mountain scene in the third act just looks so fake in the wide group shots... I found it quite jarring.

So just curious, any fan edits planned for this little opus?
 
I pretty much agree with everything that's been said, having finally picked it up and watched it. Flawed, but decent. Ripe for  an edit!

Don't particularly like Sophie Turner's very flat acting, nor the deus ex phoenix, although that is setting up for a sequel. Famke Janssen was a much better phoenix/jean grey, unfortunately.
One flaw which no-one has mentioned is the first half is way, way, WAY too long. All the Egypt gumf can go. Just show the transfer. Or show it when someone says "he can transfer". There was a LOT of wasted time - it was 42 minutes before the pot was set up. And the plot is "big bad will destroy world"....
The awful "briefing in the war room" scene can go too - really, like no-one in the audience has twigged that he's going to destroy the world?

The mall deleted scene was great fun and would be a good addition.


A few nips and tucks of CGI stuff blowing up would be nice to get rid of. What is with the epic destruction? Is it Western guilt? We destroy our cities on film to make us feel better about watching other poeple's cities get levelled on the news? Is it a coping mechanism? Or is it just that we now can do so we are doing it (without asking if it's really necessary.) We've been able to comprehend global destruction in movies before CGI. We don't need to watch individual beams being dismantled to understand "he broke the building"
 
dangermouse said:
What is with the epic destruction? 
I think the clue is in the title.

Been a while since I saw it in the theatre, but I recall coming out thinking it was too local. It should have been a global battle in numerous locations around the world that fully deserved the title, with even more destruction. Alas, it was another mutant skirmish in a singularly destroyed environment.
 
DSM2337 said:
dangermouse said:
What is with the epic destruction? 
I think the clue is in the title.
Haha. Touché!

The destruction was worldwide "Oh no the Sydney Opera House", but the final battle took place in a very confined place, with some singularly unimpressive fake rocks strewn about the place. You're right - it would've been better fighting in multiple locations.

Quicksilver's scene was awesome. Again.
 
Back
Top Bottom