Review: X-Men: Apocalypse

Year: 2016
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenplay: Simon Kinberg
Starring: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Oscar Isaac, Nicholas Hoult, Rose Byrne, Evan Peters, Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner, Olivia Munn, Lucas Till.

Synopsis is here:

Note: Contains Mild Spoilers (kinda)

It’s quite clear that I’ve not been prolific with my blog in recent weeks. Life can get in the way of things of course, as can my other hobbies and writings. However, one of the main reasons for my blogging neglect is the simple reason that I’ve not been interested in what has been released at the cinema. As I sat down to watch X-Men and found myself subjected to the high octane eye candy with its intent to melt my eyeballs with its explosions, I found myself thinking…”none of this is for me.”
I’m still (just) in the age range of the demographic that these films are trying to ensnare. I still have decent working knowledge of a lot of the movie universes which the studios are desperately trying to get me to re-enter. The reason I sat in my chair unimpressed with the twirling visuals that came to claim my pupils was quite simply the fact that X-Men Apocalypse, the way it uses film language and story structure, is simply for someone else.

From the views of my peers X-Men: Apocalypse falls into two camps: Terrible or Excellent. I’m not surprised that critics seemed to land on the former while fans leaned towards the latter. In fact much like Batman vs Superman, X-Men Apocalypse is less about being coherent or creating interesting stakes. As long as the films acknowledge fans with laborious pandering, then it’s fine. This is movies for some people now. Having the film recognise that it exists “for the fans” means it can disregard elements that are usually needed for those who haven’t been awaiting the next entry of the long running saga. Like Dawn of Justice, Apocalypse never feels like it’s telling the full story. But that’s unimportant because fans know everything anyway, so they can enjoy the “beta” version at the cinema, fill in the cracks and enjoy an “ultimate cut” or a “rouge cut” at a later date.
It looks like the X-Men, like the other comic book entries of this year (Deadpool aside), have now settled in. Settled down. The stakes are massive in that these heroes have to save the world. But don’t all these films do this now? Looking back at Ant-Man (2015), or even Iron Man (2008), these films were self-contained enough to keep the stakes interesting. Now. All these characters. These supposed grand stories feel more like lip service than anything else.

X-Men: Apocalypse has the same crowded character issue that has hobbled the likes of Age of Ultron (2015). We never learn much about the newcomers, while the old hands once again have their origins exploited as opposed to having their characters (or any new characters) grow or develop. The film spends most of its first act re-establishing Magneto as a villain, only for Micheal Fassbender to be wasted during the film’s climax. This doesn’t seem to matter. As long as he’s there. Hovering. Doing little else other than operating as the mutant version of the terraforming platform in Man of Steel (2013). The same goes for the film’s namesake. Apocalypse is considered a mutant of almost unmeasurable power, yet at no point do these powers ever feel as impressive or as dominant as they’re made out to be. Poor Oscar Isaac is little more than a heavily made up, yet utterly generic villain, who’s far from intimidating. The worst thing I found was just how little he differed from the Marvel’s cinematic universe’s Ultron. Although at least James Spader’s vocal performance had more cadence.

Like many recent franchises, X-Men has now reached a point in which, the films now bluster through to each plot point with little rhyme or reason. There’s no delicacy to the storytelling. Only an incessant charge towards another faux ending. In an age in which people go mad about spoilers, it’s unfortunate that the films that are given the larger market share have become even more predictable. Apocalypse nabs the villain’s aspirations of Age of Ultron and utilises a plan which is actioned in a similar way to Man of Steel. The heroes look to dispatch him in a way that isn’t too dissimilar from Tim Story’s version of Fantastic Four (2005). Everything feels too similar from something that was already seen before. The only real difference is that we have different heroes and villains. All that matters is that these heroes hit the same beats. An example of the film’s staleness? Look at the part Cerebro plays yet again.

Singer’s earlier X-Men works were praised for their simple but effective subtexts and relationships. Both X-men (2000) and X-2 (2003), enjoyed playing with allegories towards race, gender and identity politics. Such elements have fallen to the wayside. Why? To compete with the other comic book movies? Or is it just the fact that it quite simply doesn’t matter anymore. This film is so niche in who it caters for, that further X-Men features may not bother too much with any broader appeal. A shame, because it was this aspect which made the X-Men such an interesting choice for a mainstream blockbuster.

I must admit the film still holds are some highlights. Despite some distractingly grisly body horror, the film’s action hold a decent amount of scale. The Quicksilver sequence is yet again the film’s stand out moment. I’ll also say that both McAvoy and Fassbender are still quite watchable in their roles. Whereas Jennifer Lawrence seems quite bored with the whole affair, while some of the new blood are excruciatingly weak. Other performances (poor Olivia Munn) don’t even get a chance to show what they can really do with the material. Again, the film isn’t about any interesting insight, so some character merely stand around and look pretty.

My problem with X-Men Apocalypse is that it feels like just a set of dull set of individual sequences. A series of moments that never feel like a complete whole. The film has little need to implicate further meaning like in earlier entries. Now it has rehashed dialogue and tired gags to communicate to its audience. I will stress that this may only be me who thinks this. I don't say this as a defence to my negative view of the film. You as a reader can take or leave what I say. I mention this because the film sits with a 7.5 on IMDb. Not an easy feat. It's clear that it connects with people. But I'm not sure it's the film. I feel it's the source.

Note: Screenwriter Andrew Ellard deconstructs the film's weakneses in little more than a few tweets:

Review: X-men: Days of Future Past

Year: 2014
Director: Bryan Singer
Screenplay: Simon Kinberg
Starring: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Anna Paquin, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart

Synopsis is here:

The blockbusters are now in full flow, and despite the latest entry of the x-men franchise gaining healthy word of mouth both critically and commercially, I once again left the auditorium with feelings of fatigue. My enjoyment of the X-men series hit its peak with the brash knock around pleasure of X-2 (I did really enjoy 1^st Class also) but the time hopping antics of Wolverine and company only allowed a cloud of malaise to fog my mind.

Not being a comic book fan (per se), I find that my enjoyment of many of these films stems from when they slightly stray from the frame. I found myself more entertained with these characters when Singer decidedly placed himself out the frame as opposed to following things panel to panel. I enjoyed his broad brush strokes of religion (Nightcrawler) and race (Malcolm X and Dr King parallels) slotting into generally fun and balanced ensemble pieces. Day of Future Past cuts things straight down the line, with little time to be distracted by things that aren't dictated by the plot. We're too far down the rabbit hole for those small character beats that some enjoy.

Days of Future Past has Wolverine as the de facto leading man once again in an alteration to the original that is understandable in terms of the story, but feels dull due to the volume of X-men films with Hugh Jackman setting the pace. Jackman is still solid in the role, but after situating Wolverine as the main poster boy for long now has the decision feeling stale. It did allow my audience to gawp and giggle at Jackman's bare ass. The hefty violence, however (which did cause one family walk out), didn't raise an eyebrow. As I considered how desensitised audiences can be to on-screen violence, I realised that while the film didn't stop for me to finish my contemplation (why should it?), it didn't have anything within it to make me stop my mind from drifting.

I found myself thinking about the texture that Singer had brought to X-men before. Having mutants such as Nightcrawler who didn't just feel like an amazing opening set piece, but a chance to introduce a mutant which had a certain amount of consideration to his character. Days of Future Past has an illuminating Quicksilver (A mutant with superhuman speed) sequence which had me grinning at the wit and cocksure attitude that Evan Peters brings to the role. However, he feels utilised only as a plot device rather than anything else. The use of Quicksilver doesn't feel as jarring as the motivations of Michael Fassbender's Magneto in the later stages. Writers who know their comic onions such as Devin Faraci have written entertaining pieces on why the film has no continuity errors, but a decision by Magneto feels more muddled than it ever should do. Had I no formal knowledge of the character, I would have been questioning the film even more. The film screenplay often clunks plot elements about heavily. Ask yourself: how often do we need Wolverine to explain to people on why he's in the past? 

Here's where we are now in the comic franchise city. If you weren't around at the beginning and something confuses you, then tough cookies. It makes sense to the nerds and geeks, so you're not invited. Anything that may feel like a piece of badly communicated plot can be happily explained to you afterwards, but if that's the case, is it good filmmaking? Then again, even those who have enjoyed past entries may raise an eyebrow to other actors who get short-changed by the film's direction and its clunky narrative. Halle Berry and Anna Paquin could have had grounds to sue if they looked like they gave more of a damn.

Clearly I'm being facetious, but looking at how previous characters are treated in Days of Future Past reminds me of how empty the film made me feel. After watching it last week, I'm now struggling to remember anything other than the odd one or two moments that held my attention. Nixon caricatures and speeding Quicksilvers aside, Days of Future Past will (and has) impress those who revere the film's source material. For the likes of myself who remain on the periphery of this wave of geek pop culture, there's a good chance of being slightly stumped.