Obi-Wanma

Why is Psylocke the only character in a Bryan Singer X-Men film that gets a reasonable facsimile of their comic book costume?

CaptainMarvel

Because Olivia Munn in a swimsuit.

Supermallet

They already did it in the movies and it stunk. I realize Singer didn't direct The Last Stand but at this point it feels like the only reason he's willing to use Jean Grey at all is to make her Phoenix again. She's a perfectly good character on her own, with a rich history, of which Phoenix is only a small part.

musick

this isn't the story you are looking for

Josh-da-man

Everybody also forgets that Ryan Reynolds played Wade Wilson/Deadpool in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, though it's understandable since that movie is best forgotten.

Dr. DVD

Saw it. Easily the weakest of the new trilogy. However, I did like it overall. Both Lawrence and Fassbender were obviously fulfilling their contractual obligations. Fassbender still gave it his best, but Lawrence just phoned it . I really don't see how it's getting trashed as badly as it is, there's plenty to like. More than to dislike IMO. It's better than X3, Wolverine:Origins, and about on the same level as The Wolverine. Of course it couldn't touch Deadpool. Side note: while I loved (yet another) Wolverine cameo, this one felt completely obligatory. At least the one in First Class made sense. This one seemed like the entire abduction by Stryker was a plot device to set up his appearance . Also, if Olivia Munn is going to stand around looking like she wants to fuck someone , she needs to do it. That's a cruel tease.

Movie really had a lot of inside stuff for comic readers, especially the post credits scene. In fact, I think this might have been a bit too inside. I truly do wish they would just let the franchise end after Old Man Logan and then let Deadpool be our outlet into this world. At least he'll keep it funny.

mhg83

Can you explain the post credits scene ? I don't read the comics so I was a little confused.

Obi-Wanma

Some guy in a suit picked up a vial labeled Weapon X (Wolverine's blood?) and placed it in a suitcase that said Essex Corp on it.

Essex Corp. = Nathaniel Essex = Mr. Sinister

Dr. DVD

Sinister is a mutant who wants to make perfect being by getting DNA from all the different powerful mutants. That was what the other material was in the case. He's only damaged by optic beams from Cyclops. He has a particular interest in the Summers' family DNA . If you want to read a pretty interesting mish-mash of all X-titles with key players , look for the X-Cutioner's song TPB. It was from the Claremont era which may = $hit to some people, but it was one of the first X-story arcs I followed back in the 90s.

The Bus

Saw this today and thought it was perfectly agreeable. If you've see the other superhero movies and want more, why not give this one a try?

I realize that sounds like faint praise, but it's not.

Decker

I agree. Not a disaster like Last Stand, but easily the worst of the three and thought the villain was pretty boring. Was horribly offended that they used Aushwitz as a plot device again, but it was even more trivialized here.

Loved Quicksilver again. Liked Nightcrawler a lot. Jean Grey has potential going forward. J Law needs to get out the franchise biz, she's been so disinterested in the last two Xmen and last two Hunger Games films.

Mike86

I liked it overall but there are some issues. I liked all the main mutants and especially like the new actors playing Jean, Scott, and Nightcrawler. Quicksilver was a highlight again too.

I didn't really care for the way that Mystique was basically leading the team. That just doesn't really feel right. Also I was irritated that she wasn't in her natural form throughout much of the film. I also sort of agree that Apocalypse was kind of a boring villain overall. I think Oscar Isaac did okay with what he had to work with but the character never really felt like a great threat. The horsemen were kinda so-so too. Magneto was cool but the rest sort of just felt like they were there not doing much.

I think it's a pretty good entry and don't feel like it deserves the negative reviews it's been getting but it is a weaker film than the other recent X-Men entries. Of the comic films this year so far I'd probably go in the following order:

Captain America: Civil War
Deadpool
X-Men: Apocalypse
Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Super X

I saw this yesterday. While I overall enjoyed it, yes, it did have issues. For me, the issues really were with the villains. Oscar Isaac was alright, but his character really was one that called for being played over-the-top, but instead it was played somewhat muted. While one could relate to the character of Magneto in prior films and somewhat sympathize with his point of view, Apocalypse, in trying to "cleanse" the world, really didn't seem much more than a power-hungry zealot. The horsemen were a problem, as well. While Magneto was given sufficient motivation for what he was doing, what about the others? Storm wanted to be a great hero, but never seemed to have a problem with Apocalypse's plan until seeing Mystique fighting him at the end (which, really, seemed to be this film's Martha moment), Angel was thinly defined, a fighting drunkard angry at the world because, what, his wings got singed because a guy he was trying to kill defended himself? And Psylocke, well, let's be honest, the character's whole point really seemed to be to show as much Olivia Munn skin as they could get away with. There was about as much character definition as there were lines for the character in the film. She was just there for show.

On the X-Men side, I generally thought the new introductions were handled well. Oddly, the Wolverine appearance was probably weakest. The whole Alkali Lake sequence really seemed like a diversion from the main story and solely an excuse to get Hugh Jackman into the film. Beyond the fact that the while Wolverine/Weapon X/Stryker film storyline is pretty much played out, it also demonstrates Fox's lack of confidence in the X-Men concept on its own in that they feel like they need the crutch of a Wolverine appearance where it's not needed. One of the lessons that Deadpool demonstrates is that a solid X-Men based film can be successful without throwing in unnecessary fan-favorite characters just to shoehorn them in there.

I liked the joke about third movies being disappointing, but it really seemed to be poking the tiger as this is the third film in the "First Class" sequence. While not bad, it's certainly not up to the level of the prior two films.

JasonF

Saw it last night. Thought it was very bloated, but it also at times felt like I was seeing clips from a longer movie where characters would have proper emotional depth. Many of the characters -- especially Apocalypse -- were wasted. And it seemed like a lot of things happened just for the sake of winking to the fans (the whole sequence at the Alkali Lake base had no business being in the movie and sucked up half an hour that should have been spent on developing the Apocalypse plot line).

Still a better superhero movie than Superman v Batman though.

Daytripper

Just got back. I gave it a 3.5/5 star review here. Or 8/10 on my scale. The destruction and rebuilding scenes grew a little tiresome and the special effects during them were a little cheap and cheesy looking. Otherwise, it was a solid entry in the series.

The Antipodean

Box office guru:

THIS WEEKEND Hollywood studios programmed two big-budget sequels over the Memorial Day holiday frame and audiences responded with smaller spending than for the films' predecessors.

Opening at number one was the super hero epic X-Men: Apocalypse with an estimated $65M over the Friday-to-Sunday portion of the holiday session averaging $15,663 from 4,150 locations. While easily enough to win the weekend, the tally was 28% below the opening performance of the last film in the X-Men series - Days of Future Past which bowed to $90.8M over the same three-day span of this holiday two years ago. That film featured both old and new casts together and brought back original director Bryan Singer after a decade-long absence. Apocalypse was more of a stand-alone adventure that was typical for the genre.

Looking at the nine-film mutant franchise that Fox has had over the past 16 years, Apocalypse had the sixth best opening weekend. In terms of actual tickets sold, it ranks seventh out of nine. The new PG-13 film sold approximately 25% fewer tickets on opening weekend than the first X-Men in July of 2000.

Reviews for the new mutant saga were not too strong and were a far cry from the raves received by DOFP. Also, movie fans have already spent over $1 billion on a trio of comic book movies this year so some may not have felt the need for a fourth one in under five months. Studio data showed that the audience was 62% male and 55% over 25. Despite five major roles for women in the cast, the female share of the crowd was relatively low. The CinemaScore grade was a good A-.

The four-day holiday opening weekend should come in at around $79M. Given how front-loaded a super hero sequel launching over a holiday weekend can be, the final domestic haul may reach the neighborhood of $170M. That would be less than what Deadpool made in its first six days and less then what Captain America: Civil War grossed in its first three.

B5Erik

OK, I don't get it.

Apocalypse is a good movie. It's not great, but it is a good, solid X-Men movie. Yes, they threw too much in there, but they managed to tie it all together pretty well. It's more cohesive than I expected going in.

So I don't get all the negetive reviews. It's not a bad movie. At all. It may not be as good as it could have, and should have, been, but it is a good movie.

I liked Quicksilver (although Marvel's Quicksilver is more like the actual comic character), I liked Fassbender (he was good before being recruited by Apocalypse), McAvoy and Hoult were good, and I liked the overall story.

I didn't like Sophie Turner as Jean Grey - not just because she looks so different from Famke Janssen, but because she was so damned boring in the role. This was a bland, generic character that had almost zero personality. The part was written poorly, and then Turner played her so generically that it kept taking me out of the movie and reminded me that she was an actress and not Jean Grey.

And it seemed like Singer was hell bent on topping the last movie in terms of scope and global peril. That didn't make this a better movie, just bigger. Days of Future Past was better written, acted, and definitely better directed and edited. In trying to make this a BIGGER movie they failed to write a script that matched up.

Still, I liked it overall. It's not one of my favorites, but it is still a solid, enjoyable X-Men movie that is well worth both seeing in the theater and buying on blu ray.

Mondo Kane

It really seems like critics are quickly pushing for the superhero demise. From now on, every comic-book movie has to be better than Dark Knight and Winter Soldier. Otherwise, it's an automatic "F".

Brack

I was worried the "Martha!" moment was going to be between Quicksilver and Magneto. Glad it didn't go there.


Overall I liked it. Agree with most criticisms already mentioned. I didn't have a problem with Apocalypse as a villain, though he seemed pretty careless about his reincarnation process by leaving himself practically defenseless. And maybe this is being nitpicky, but Magneto apparently exonerated for everything he's done with no explanation seemed a bit lazy.

hasslein

I would've liked more Psylocke. I fell asleep in the middle, unless I missed it, why didn't we get backstory for her?

majorjoe23

Here's all the backstory needed:

hasslein

Decker

I wouldn't have minded more of that, either.

robin2099

I liked it. I liked it a lot honestly, it wasn't without it's problems, but it was still a fun and exciting movie to watch, and in my opinion one of the stronger X-Men movies. Just some random thoughts:

-Apocalypse really should have been CGI. Instead what we got was not awe-inspiring and reminded me too much of Ivan Ooze from the Power Ranges movie.

-Fassbender and McAvoy were awesome again as expected. Same with Hoult. Lawrence just appeared to be there.

-Loved the Wolverine appearance. Too bad they gave that away in the trailer.

-Of the new mutants appearing, I think Psyloche did the best and had the most presence. I'd love to see Olivia Munn back and was sad she didn't join the X-Men. Wasn't a fan of Storm, or Angel at all. Nightcrawler was pretty great though. Cyclops wasn't pretty good. Sophie Turner just didn't seem to have much presence as Jean and kind of fell flat.

-I really don't like how they wrote Mystique at all. Her being a "hero" to all mutant kind and the leader of the X-Men just seems really forced. It reminded me of Storm in X3 when Berry said she wouldn't do it again unless she had a bigger role and the movie became about Storm, as much as about Phoenix.

But I liked it a lot. I would give it a 4/5 and think this is a great trilogy of X-Men films that surpasses the initial trilogy. Of the Superhero movies I've seen so far this year I would rate them:

1.XM:A
2BVS
3.DEADPOOL
4.CIVIL WAR

The Bus

No arguments there. The first X-Men was well done but has probably not aged well after all these years. X2 was fantastic, but the third was abysmal.

These three were all solid. I would watch any of them if they happened to be on TV.