X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) Film Review: Not As Catastrophic As Hysteria Claims It To Be...

During the ancient times, the first mutant known as Apocalypse was betrayed by the people he ruled over. When he awakens in the 1980's, he is disgusted by how the human race have managed to be in power. Gifting those who follow him with stronger abilities, he becomes a worldwide threat as he persuades Magneto to his side and plans to transfer himself into Charles Xavier in order to control every mind in the planet. A new generation of X-Men is founded as students, friends and acquaintances team up in order to prevent the world's distraction from the most powerful mutant ever discovered. Although the story has stakes and moments that suck in the viewer, the problem people claim is that the film is overly-long and generic. True, the story has been done before with "Avengers: Age of Ultron" being a culprit, but I feel that the story itself is fine and does keep you in your seat. The pacing however is a problem that I can see a lot of people argue about. Apocalypse doesn't become a huge threat until around the second act and that's way more than an hour in a nearly two and a half hour film. While there are some nice character moments with Magneto, some moments of comedy, and fun action scenes waged in, the problem is that there appears to be a lot of padding. I don't have a huge problem with the pacing, since I understand why that the filmmakers put a lot of scenes and dialogue in order to explain what Apocalypse is and his goal, as well as catching up with old faces along with new faces thrown in. I would give them credit for achieving in making a coherent story that elaborates on the details, but I think that there is one part of the story that should have been removed. That is the segment where Stryker captures our heroes and they escape using Wolverine as a distraction. It's purely fan-service that drags the plot to a crawl and Striker barely plays any role in the film whatsoever.

The X-Men films always do a fantastic job with the characters and actors with this film carrying that torch for the most part. I'm going to be brief as possible for most of these characters. James McAvoy as Charles Xavier is great, though I personally feel that he did a much better performance in "Dark Phoenix". Micheal Fassbender as Magneto is fantastic as always and the film gives him some great moments such as his family in Poland and him destroying Alcatraz. Jennifer Lawrence as Raven is not bad, but people mainly complain that she progresses into a hero rather than a villain, which is such a silly argument in my opinion. As for the side characters, Beast, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Nightcrawler, Moira, and Quicksilver all do fine jobs , though it's Nightcrawler and Quicksilver that shine more than the others, as the others either don't carry the same energy or barely have a moment to shine. Then, we have Apocalypse, who is played by an unrecognizable Oscar Issac. Everyone complains about the make-up, the height, the range of abilities and the personality of the character, which I don't understand. For one, the film spells out a lot of his motivation and powers, which requires viewers to pay attention to. I don't mind the look of Apocalypse, as if you just had a huge CGI character instead, he would look really silly with the other characters. And while the character isn't very charismatic, he wasn't supposed to be. Apocalypse is a being from ancient times trying to rule the world as a god, not exactly a character with wit and humour to his name. I will say though that it's the Horseman that are the weakest characters of the film. I don't mind Storm, but she doesn't have enough screentime to make her engaging enough for many, coming off as bland. It's Psylocke and Archangel, as well as Striker, who are the worst characters in my opinion. They add nothing to the film and are just boring to watch. While the actors are trying their best, they just don't have enough material to work on with, which was bound to happen given the vast amount of characters and scale of the story. Despite these characters, majority of the cast is well-acted and characterized, even though some characters don't get enough time than others.

Bryan Singer returns to helm the franchise he has created and does a good job in directing in the revised timeline of his creation. Some find Singer's directing to be tired and boring compared to the usual superhero flick, but I believe that's due to the thematic elements of the X-Men as a whole. Yes, there are scenes with tons of action, but there are long stretches of character building and exposition compared to the usual MCU film. I personally don't mind how Singer has the first act to set-up the rest of the film to payoff with great action and spectacle. I feel that it's treated more like a reward for those who dealt with the slow pace, similarly to how "Avengers: Endgame" was paced. The film, unlike Singer's previous works, is bursting with colour and bright daytime scenes, crossed with gothic sequences such as the fight club, the birth of Archangel and the death of Magneto's family. It really works, considering the film's more lighthearted tone, compared to "Days of Future Pasts" with the race against time and interiors. The cinematography and editing is great as the film flows naturally with action presented clearly without issue. The score by John Ottman is fantastic as always with the main theme being iconic, Jean defeating Apocalypse having a memorizing beat, and the use of "Sweet Dreams" during Quicksilver's action moment being highlights of the soundtrack. While the action is fun to watch, one thing that people have complained about is the quality of the CGI. The X-Men films do their best in keeping their action on-camera as much as possible, but Apocalypse is where they utilize a ton of CGI, both in the backgrounds and use of powers. The climax is seen by many as a mess of unconvincing CGI, to which I completely disagree. Sure, the CGI is not the best looking, but it is stylized and done as needed for the set-piece. Also, it's a hypocritical mentality considering many superhero films using tons of CGI in their climatic battles, some of which look much worse than the ones used in Apocalypse. I will say though that I very much preferred the climax in "Dark Phoenix", due to the action being much more tight and on-camera.

I can never understand the hate behind "X-Men: Apocalypse". Yes, there are some negatives such as the pacing, overuse of CGI, and side characters that barely have a moment to shine. However, I believe that these things don't hurt the film as much as it could have. Singer does a good job once again in the directing chair, the story is engaging with huge stakes and plot points, the majority of characters are well-acted and established, a visually glowing feature that matches the more lighthearted tone that blends with the serious moments, the cinematography and editing are really good, Ottman's score is great as always for the franchise veteran, and the action is still fun to watch. If the Striker sub-plot was removed, I honestly believe that many would have enjoyed as they wouldn't be nitpicking as much over a shorter film. I think that the only reason why people really don't like the film is due to "Days of Future Past" being so much better as a film that it makes it look that Singer lost his game. Sure, it sucks that this is not as close to a masterpiece that "Days of Future Past" is, but this is nowhere near the worst of the worst for the genre or even the franchise as a whole. It has its issues, but it's nowhere near the disaster as people want it to be.

Verdict: 7/10. Down-of-the-middle for the franchise, but on par with your standard superhero romp. Try to give this one another chance to give you an impression.