The first time I knew that this film will feature Apocalypse I feel like I've already disappointed: it's not the time yet to feature one of the most ferocious X-Men's supervillain.
What I watched seems to confirm my suspected disappointment.
This IMO film can actually be good, but there are two problems. In the case of supervillain, he mimics the mistake of Avengers Age of Ultron: the super indestructible god-like villain was defeated in the most anticlimactic way.
The villain's introduction was too rushed. The development of the conflict was too rushed. The villain's demise, too, was too rushed.
This is especially so considering Apocalypse (En Sabah Nur) is an ultimate villain who can turn dozens to dust just by flicking their fingers and build a pyramid just by twisting their hands. In the end he just became "just another crazy guy who wants to end the world (like we don't have enough of them, dammit!)."
In terms of the focus of the story, the film also mimics the mistakes of the Captain America Civil War: the title of the movie is not that connected to the focus of the story.
In the Civil War, the issue should've been Sokovia Accords. In Apocalypse, the issue should've been the threat of destruction of the world and fulfillment of Apocalypse's ambition.But the movie don't let us understand why Apocalypse has such a big ambition. We also do not see any kind of motives that led the Four Horsemen (Magneto et al.) to decide in following Apocalypse.
Even for Magneto, who has the most obvious reason, the way they outline the story makes Magneto a character with unstable, undecided personality. All the destruction and threat was subsided anticlimactic-ly with no repercussion at all (seriously, how the hell the world forgives Magneto just like that, when we were shown earlier how he became a fugitive?). This also downplays the impact of Days of Future Past's ending.
This film feels like it's leaning to become some sort of closure to Bryan Singer's X-Men reboot. And just that.
There are inauguration of old characters with new faces: Storm, Cyclops, Jean Gray, Nightcrawler. Alexander Shipp replaced Halle Berry, Tye Sheridan replaced James Marsden, Sophie Turner replaced Famke Janssen, etc. And of course James McAvoy / Patrick Stewart, Michael Fassbender / Ian McKellen.
Through this film, it looks like Singer is saying that this is the beginning of a reboot of the new world of X-Men. New stories are coming. And for that reason, so many subplots are built here.
Unfortunately, just like what happened in Civil War, this means that the film's initial premise (Apocalypse's threat) can be replaced by any kind of villains which does not change the story at all.
Originally written in 29th May 2016 https://www.facebook.com/xaliber/posts/10153652249883543
Review by Pradipa PRBlockedParent2019-05-29T14:04:45Z
The first time I knew that this film will feature Apocalypse I feel like I've already disappointed: it's not the time yet to feature one of the most ferocious X-Men's supervillain.
What I watched seems to confirm my suspected disappointment.
This IMO film can actually be good, but there are two problems. In the case of supervillain, he mimics the mistake of Avengers Age of Ultron: the super indestructible god-like villain was defeated in the most anticlimactic way.
The villain's introduction was too rushed. The development of the conflict was too rushed. The villain's demise, too, was too rushed.
This is especially so considering Apocalypse (En Sabah Nur) is an ultimate villain who can turn dozens to dust just by flicking their fingers and build a pyramid just by twisting their hands. In the end he just became "just another crazy guy who wants to end the world (like we don't have enough of them, dammit!)."
In terms of the focus of the story, the film also mimics the mistakes of the Captain America Civil War: the title of the movie is not that connected to the focus of the story.
In the Civil War, the issue should've been Sokovia Accords. In Apocalypse, the issue should've been the threat of destruction of the world and fulfillment of Apocalypse's ambition.But the movie don't let us understand why Apocalypse has such a big ambition. We also do not see any kind of motives that led the Four Horsemen (Magneto et al.) to decide in following Apocalypse.
Even for Magneto, who has the most obvious reason, the way they outline the story makes Magneto a character with unstable, undecided personality. All the destruction and threat was subsided anticlimactic-ly with no repercussion at all (seriously, how the hell the world forgives Magneto just like that, when we were shown earlier how he became a fugitive?). This also downplays the impact of Days of Future Past's ending.
This film feels like it's leaning to become some sort of closure to Bryan Singer's X-Men reboot. And just that.
There are inauguration of old characters with new faces: Storm, Cyclops, Jean Gray, Nightcrawler. Alexander Shipp replaced Halle Berry, Tye Sheridan replaced James Marsden, Sophie Turner replaced Famke Janssen, etc. And of course James McAvoy / Patrick Stewart, Michael Fassbender / Ian McKellen.
Through this film, it looks like Singer is saying that this is the beginning of a reboot of the new world of X-Men. New stories are coming. And for that reason, so many subplots are built here.
Unfortunately, just like what happened in Civil War, this means that the film's initial premise (Apocalypse's threat) can be replaced by any kind of villains which does not change the story at all.
Originally written in 29th May 2016 https://www.facebook.com/xaliber/posts/10153652249883543