"Everything they've built will fall!" - Apocalypse.
It seemed as though barley any time had passed between the release of three mammoth-sized superhero films. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice bored me, and so Captain America: Civil War acted as a painkiller and showed that superheroes in conflicted could be entertaining and not such a drag. After no time at all, we have yet another superhero film, and it seems as though people are treating X-Men: Apocalypse as the "one too many" release. Audiences are quickly being burnt out with the plethora of comic book films which are showing no signs of slowing down, but is the eighth entry in the X-Men franchise deserving of the disinterest, or is it just a case of it being released at the wrong time?
Following on from the craziness of 2014's Days of Future Past, X-Men: Apocalypse keeps things relatively straight-forward. Once again focusing on the younger incarnations of the X-Men, we are re-introduced to iconic characters such as Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Jean Grey (Sophie Turner). Their journey to become X-Men can't come soon enough, as an ancient evil in the guise of Apocalypse (Oscar Isaac) has awoken. Seeking to purify the world so that only the strongest mutants are the dominant species, Apocalypse assembles a new team of followers, including Magneto (Michael Fassbender). It's now up to Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and the other X-Men to prevent Apocalypse from carrying out his plan.
Bryan Singer returns to direct, after continuing the franchise's success with Days of Future Past. Though he was able to tell a dizzying story in that film coherently, his direction here has the opposite effect. The story is less complex, but the pacing is a little off to begin with. Most of the first act has to establish where the characters are after the events of the last film, re-introduce the younger incarnations of the X-Men and also introduce the mythology of Apocalypse. It's a lot to juggle and the film comes across as imbalanced because of it. When it appears that Singer has finally got the ball rolling, there is an out-of-nowhere moment that halts everything. Colonel Stryker (Josh Helman) reappears and captures some of the X-Men, so the one's left behind have to go and rescue them. No of this seems to have any connection to the main plot of Apocalypse, and it takes up way too much screen-time. The sequence only exists to have Hugh Jackman keep up his record of appearing in every X-Men film, but I don't see much point in having another scene showing us the origins of Wolverine when X-Men 2 (2002) already told us plenty.
One thing the film did make we realise was how much I've missed seeing James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Charles Xavier and Magneto. Many fans loved their chemistry in X-Men: First Class (2011), and both actors are as fantastic as ever here. In this film, we see them forced to contemplate exactly where they stand on the existence of both humans and mutants, with Magneto joining forces with Apocalypse and Charles having to confront Apocalypse on a telepathic level. Their scene's are the best parts of the film, and I'd be more than happy to see them return for more. Both characters are infinitely more compelling than the villain, which I'm sad to say doesn't fit the supposed massive scale I expected. With Apocalypse seeing himself as more a of a god than a mutant, I expected a stronger presence than menace, but he has very little to do and doesn't demonstrate much of his powers throughout the film. His backstory sets him up to be the most incredible foe the X-Men have ever faced, but he only confronts the team once and doesn't achieve much other than assembling his essential "Four Horseman".
Finally, I would like to mention my feelings of this film alongside my thoughts on the two other superhero blockbusters I have already reviewed. Although X-Men: Apocalypse is clunky and lacks a good villain, it was the first of the three films where I felt I had actually watched a story play out on-screen. Batman v Superman is hardly a film, it exists purely to set up sequels and throw iconic characters at us without focusing on why we should be invested in their conflict or feelings. Civil War, while an entertaining experience, is all built around that one massive fight sequence. The conflict in Civil War is better than BvS, but on reflection, it will serve as an example of how dumbed-down we like our cinema nowadays. Of course, a big selling point of X-Men: Apocalypse is seeing the team fight the villains, but there is much more emotional weight and less hammy acting than BvS or Civil War. Bryan Singer actually wants to get you invested in his characters, and the chemistry between the cast was more believable and enjoyable overall. Bottom-line: it may not be the best superhero film, but with Civil War being praised as some kind of masterpiece, this was always going to have a lukewarm reception. I, however, cannot fathom why everyone thinks Civil War is so perfect, and so I recommend you check out X-Men for a more engrossing and just as entertaining film.
Oh, and its a million times better than BvS, just in case you hadn't figured that out yet.
Bryan Singer returns to direct, after continuing the franchise's success with Days of Future Past. Though he was able to tell a dizzying story in that film coherently, his direction here has the opposite effect. The story is less complex, but the pacing is a little off to begin with. Most of the first act has to establish where the characters are after the events of the last film, re-introduce the younger incarnations of the X-Men and also introduce the mythology of Apocalypse. It's a lot to juggle and the film comes across as imbalanced because of it. When it appears that Singer has finally got the ball rolling, there is an out-of-nowhere moment that halts everything. Colonel Stryker (Josh Helman) reappears and captures some of the X-Men, so the one's left behind have to go and rescue them. No of this seems to have any connection to the main plot of Apocalypse, and it takes up way too much screen-time. The sequence only exists to have Hugh Jackman keep up his record of appearing in every X-Men film, but I don't see much point in having another scene showing us the origins of Wolverine when X-Men 2 (2002) already told us plenty.
One thing the film did make we realise was how much I've missed seeing James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Charles Xavier and Magneto. Many fans loved their chemistry in X-Men: First Class (2011), and both actors are as fantastic as ever here. In this film, we see them forced to contemplate exactly where they stand on the existence of both humans and mutants, with Magneto joining forces with Apocalypse and Charles having to confront Apocalypse on a telepathic level. Their scene's are the best parts of the film, and I'd be more than happy to see them return for more. Both characters are infinitely more compelling than the villain, which I'm sad to say doesn't fit the supposed massive scale I expected. With Apocalypse seeing himself as more a of a god than a mutant, I expected a stronger presence than menace, but he has very little to do and doesn't demonstrate much of his powers throughout the film. His backstory sets him up to be the most incredible foe the X-Men have ever faced, but he only confronts the team once and doesn't achieve much other than assembling his essential "Four Horseman".
Finally, I would like to mention my feelings of this film alongside my thoughts on the two other superhero blockbusters I have already reviewed. Although X-Men: Apocalypse is clunky and lacks a good villain, it was the first of the three films where I felt I had actually watched a story play out on-screen. Batman v Superman is hardly a film, it exists purely to set up sequels and throw iconic characters at us without focusing on why we should be invested in their conflict or feelings. Civil War, while an entertaining experience, is all built around that one massive fight sequence. The conflict in Civil War is better than BvS, but on reflection, it will serve as an example of how dumbed-down we like our cinema nowadays. Of course, a big selling point of X-Men: Apocalypse is seeing the team fight the villains, but there is much more emotional weight and less hammy acting than BvS or Civil War. Bryan Singer actually wants to get you invested in his characters, and the chemistry between the cast was more believable and enjoyable overall. Bottom-line: it may not be the best superhero film, but with Civil War being praised as some kind of masterpiece, this was always going to have a lukewarm reception. I, however, cannot fathom why everyone thinks Civil War is so perfect, and so I recommend you check out X-Men for a more engrossing and just as entertaining film.
Oh, and its a million times better than BvS, just in case you hadn't figured that out yet.
