By Nadia Ranaputri
Director: Bryan Singer
Cast: James Mcavoy, Michael Fassbender, Oscar Isaac, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Rose Byrne, Evan Peters, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Alexandra Shipp, Lucas Till, Olivia Munn, Ben Hardy.
Here’s the thing: I love the X-Men. I love the feel of the franchise, I love the messages it conveys, and I love the fact that the X-Men franchise is what introduced me to superhero movies. If it weren’t for them, I probably wouldn’t have been diving into the superhero genre.
The original X-Men trilogy was a spectacle (with the exception of X-Men: The Last Stand) and the new set of trilogy brought fresh new take to everyone’s favorite mutants.
X-Men: Apocalypse ends the new trilogy and is a follow up from X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past. X-Men: Apocalypse takes place in the 1980s, where after the events of Days of Future Past, Charles Xavier has reopened his school for gifted youngsters. In the midst of what seems to be peace among mutants and humans, an awakening what is supposedly the world’s first mutant, En Sabah Nur, alias Apocalypse; has commenced. Seeing chaos in the world he has awoken in, Apocalypse assembles (no Avengers pun here, okay?) four powerful mutants as his Four Horsemen. As they attempt to rid the world of its supposed chaos, the X-Men regroup again to fight for mankind.
Like Captain America: Civil War before it, X-Men: Apocalypse boasts a lot of characters under its belt. If you’ve seen my Civil War review, I mentioned that the problem with having many characters is that not everyone will get a chance to shine or be rooted for. Civil War had no problem shining the spotlight on almost every character (every Avenger, to be exact) and they did it effortlessly.
X-Men: Apocalypse has this problem. The film boasts a lot of mutants, including new ones that we’ve never seen on the big screen before. The thing is, only a few new mutants are given the spotlight and reasons for them being there. One of my main gripes is that Archangel and Psylocke aren’t given much story. We are never explained why they follow Apocalypse and why they keep continuing to do so.
I apologize for any inconvenience, but I can’t help but compare this to Captain America: Civil War. Skip this part if you must.
Most of us have seen Civil War, so it’s not a problem if I delve in to spoilers (and that is if I do end up doing it) for the movie. In Civil War, we are introduced to two new characters: Black Panther and Spider-Man, both having their own solo movies coming in the following years. In the span of their limited screen time, they are given moments to shine (especially Black Panther, whose arc is pivotal in this movie). Civil War showed us why they’re here as well as giving us a glimpse of their personalities as a person and abilities as a hero.
As for Psylocke and Archangel? They’re just there. Archangel was given a few things, but maybe that’ll do for now. But Psylocke, my God, only has a total of about two lines in this movie. Less talking, more fighting for her. Don’t get me wrong, if a character fights more than she talks, then I’m fine with it. But if we are not given her reason of being there, it’s going to be hard to root for her. The problem with Psylocke is that we’re not given much from her.
Another problem that I had with this movie
were the motivations of Apocalypse and his Four Horsemen. First of all, I love
Oscar Isaac. He’s one of my most favorite actors. He has great range and he can
play literally anyone. I can say that he’s menacing enough as Apocalypse. But
why is Apocalypse so hell-bent on destroying the world? We’re not given a
logical reason (if not ANY reason) as to why he wants to ‘cleanse the earth’.
He just wants to destroy the world. He took one look at the world and BAM, he
decided to rid it. You know what this reminds me of? Ultron from Avengers: Age of Ultron. That’s right, I
went there. Ultron took one look at the world and he decides that it deserves
to be destroyed. What’s worse is that this “wanting to destroy the world for
some reason” type of villain is basically a thing nowadays in big budget films.
I actually prefer an underwritten villain with a clear motivation (*cough*
Darren Cross *cough*) rather than a big-scale villain with no actual reason as
to why he wants to destroy stuff.
This problem eventually spreads to the storyline itself. I thought the storyline was quite solid, but it's not as compelling and cohesive as the first two films in the prequel series. The first two films knew where they were going with the story and they had good buildups that leads to a great third act.
Speaking of third acts, the one in Apocalyse was entertaining, but I felt that they were just trying too hard. What the first two films did so well was create a compellling third act without bloating it in attempt to make it epic. So without spoiling anything, X-Men: Apocalypse's third act was a little all over the place.
So let’s move on to the positives. The action sequences are great, and they’re well handled, up until the third act. The CGI was nicely incorporated, and the cinematography was quite spectacular.
Another positive are the new additions to the X-Men. Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, and Alexandra Shipp all gave impressive first impressions as they portray the younger versions of Jean Grey, Scott Summers, and Ororo Munroe respectively.
But the highest compliment I can give to this film is Erik Lensherr/Magneto's arc. His arc is done beautifully and without giving anything away, I felt that Bryan Singer really took his time with Erik; and Bryan succeeded in creating so many new layers to the character. Michael Fassbender brings it his all as Erik, and his striking performance just seeps straight through the screen.
Other than that, X-Men: Apocalypse was quite the disappointment. It’s way better than Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, but it’s too low to be better than Captain America: Civil War. Few new mutants are given the spotlight they deserve, including Erik Lensherr; while some are a little forgettable to say the least. Though the action scenes are spectacular, and Magneto's arc was beautifully done, X-Men: Apocalypse lacks character motivations and materials to make us care for them.
Stars: 3.2/5
 |
| Source: World of Superheroes |
Cast: James Mcavoy, Michael Fassbender, Oscar Isaac, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Rose Byrne, Evan Peters, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Alexandra Shipp, Lucas Till, Olivia Munn, Ben Hardy.
Here’s the thing: I love the X-Men. I love the feel of the franchise, I love the messages it conveys, and I love the fact that the X-Men franchise is what introduced me to superhero movies. If it weren’t for them, I probably wouldn’t have been diving into the superhero genre.
The original X-Men trilogy was a spectacle (with the exception of X-Men: The Last Stand) and the new set of trilogy brought fresh new take to everyone’s favorite mutants.
X-Men: Apocalypse ends the new trilogy and is a follow up from X-Men: First Class and X-Men: Days of Future Past. X-Men: Apocalypse takes place in the 1980s, where after the events of Days of Future Past, Charles Xavier has reopened his school for gifted youngsters. In the midst of what seems to be peace among mutants and humans, an awakening what is supposedly the world’s first mutant, En Sabah Nur, alias Apocalypse; has commenced. Seeing chaos in the world he has awoken in, Apocalypse assembles (no Avengers pun here, okay?) four powerful mutants as his Four Horsemen. As they attempt to rid the world of its supposed chaos, the X-Men regroup again to fight for mankind.
Like Captain America: Civil War before it, X-Men: Apocalypse boasts a lot of characters under its belt. If you’ve seen my Civil War review, I mentioned that the problem with having many characters is that not everyone will get a chance to shine or be rooted for. Civil War had no problem shining the spotlight on almost every character (every Avenger, to be exact) and they did it effortlessly.
X-Men: Apocalypse has this problem. The film boasts a lot of mutants, including new ones that we’ve never seen on the big screen before. The thing is, only a few new mutants are given the spotlight and reasons for them being there. One of my main gripes is that Archangel and Psylocke aren’t given much story. We are never explained why they follow Apocalypse and why they keep continuing to do so.
I apologize for any inconvenience, but I can’t help but compare this to Captain America: Civil War. Skip this part if you must.
Most of us have seen Civil War, so it’s not a problem if I delve in to spoilers (and that is if I do end up doing it) for the movie. In Civil War, we are introduced to two new characters: Black Panther and Spider-Man, both having their own solo movies coming in the following years. In the span of their limited screen time, they are given moments to shine (especially Black Panther, whose arc is pivotal in this movie). Civil War showed us why they’re here as well as giving us a glimpse of their personalities as a person and abilities as a hero.
As for Psylocke and Archangel? They’re just there. Archangel was given a few things, but maybe that’ll do for now. But Psylocke, my God, only has a total of about two lines in this movie. Less talking, more fighting for her. Don’t get me wrong, if a character fights more than she talks, then I’m fine with it. But if we are not given her reason of being there, it’s going to be hard to root for her. The problem with Psylocke is that we’re not given much from her.
 |
| Source: Lovelyti |
This problem eventually spreads to the storyline itself. I thought the storyline was quite solid, but it's not as compelling and cohesive as the first two films in the prequel series. The first two films knew where they were going with the story and they had good buildups that leads to a great third act.
Speaking of third acts, the one in Apocalyse was entertaining, but I felt that they were just trying too hard. What the first two films did so well was create a compellling third act without bloating it in attempt to make it epic. So without spoiling anything, X-Men: Apocalypse's third act was a little all over the place.
So let’s move on to the positives. The action sequences are great, and they’re well handled, up until the third act. The CGI was nicely incorporated, and the cinematography was quite spectacular.
 |
| Source: 20th Century Fox |
But the highest compliment I can give to this film is Erik Lensherr/Magneto's arc. His arc is done beautifully and without giving anything away, I felt that Bryan Singer really took his time with Erik; and Bryan succeeded in creating so many new layers to the character. Michael Fassbender brings it his all as Erik, and his striking performance just seeps straight through the screen.
Other than that, X-Men: Apocalypse was quite the disappointment. It’s way better than Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, but it’s too low to be better than Captain America: Civil War. Few new mutants are given the spotlight they deserve, including Erik Lensherr; while some are a little forgettable to say the least. Though the action scenes are spectacular, and Magneto's arc was beautifully done, X-Men: Apocalypse lacks character motivations and materials to make us care for them.
Stars: 3.2/5
