X-Men: Apocalypse Movie Review

Article by Gabe Zia

Lazy Film Critic Movie Reviews

X-Men: Apocalypse

X-Men: Apocalypse is the ninth film in the X-Men film franchise, and the third film in the young X-Men prequel series that began in 2011 with First Class (in my opinion the best X-Men movie thus far). It stars James Mcavoy, Michael Fassbender, Oscar Isaac, Jennifer Lawrence, Sophie Turner, Tye Sheridan, Evan Peters, Alexandra Shipp, Olivia Munn, Nicholas Hoult, and Kodi-Smitt Mcphee. This film follows the X-Men having the face off against the first mutant, who is threatening to essentially take over the world and destroy the world.

So, I'm gonna be totally honest here, X-Men: Apocalypse was kind of a mixed bag for me, there's a lot that's good in it, but there's also quite a bit of not so good. In traditional LFC fashion, I'm gonna start with the good. Sophie Turner as Jean Grey was fantastic, easily the best live action portrayal of the character so-far. McAvoy and Fassbender are always a nice touch, they have good chemistry and they're just generally good actors. Evan Peters has a bigger role in this movie as Quicksilver than he does in DOFP, which is a nice touch, his character brings a lot of much needed fun to this movie and to a lot of its edgier moments.

The action in the movie is entertaining when it's happening, there's a really solid fight scene with Nightcrawler and Angel early on, both the Quicksilver time-stoppage scenes in this movie are a lot of fun (even if much like DOFP they beg the question why you would even need any other X-Men), and there's one scene with Wolverine that I honestly enjoyed. Are the fight scenes as good looking as in The Wolverine or as fun to watch as in First Class? No, but they get the job done. 

Now, one of the reasons that I personally really enjoyed 2013's The Wolverine was because that movie looks beautiful, both in it's stunning cinematography and it's really solid special effects. I bring it up, because it's the polar opposite of what X-Men: Apocalypse is in terms of looks. I'm not gonna sugarcoat it or go easy on this one, X-Men: Apocalypse is an awful looking movie. The visual effects are, at their very best, barely passable for a 2007 video game cinematic. At their worst, they look like rejected CGI shots from Shyamalans the Last Airbender. This is the kind of thing that would be acceptable in the early 2000s when this series started, but not in 2016 when it's one of the biggest series right now.

Adding on to the ugly-factor, the cinematography is mostly lazy and boring. With the exception of a few here and there, there aren't many creative shots or meaningful uses of the camera in this movie. There are a ton of center frame shots in this movie at very inappropriate times, demonstrating Singer has no idea what a center frame shot actually does to a scene. Essentially, putting the character in the dead center of the frame and having them stare at the camera will make the audience feel awkward and maybe even uncomfortable. Now, directors like Wes Anderson use this effect to make a scene humorous, the point of the scene is that its awkward, so this is a technique used to make the audience feel awkward. HOWEVER, it's not supposed to be used in key dramatic moments or intense action scenes at the climax, that just makes everything look a bit off.

Okay... But major hollywood movies have bad CGI and lazy cinematography all the time, right? Well, yes and no. Sure, Deadpool isn't the best example of cinematography, and the motion capture in The Force Awakens is pre-Avatar at best. But what those movies have that Apocalypse doesn't have is something to distract you from that. Sure it's a superficial way to put it, but it's the truth. This is an empty movie, and it never at any point engaged me or made me care about what happened at the end. The reason we forgive a movie like The Force Awakens for it's low-res Motion capture is because of stuff like: the main character is likable and engaging, or because it balances drama and humor.

Unlike a film like that, X-Men Apocalypse doesn't balance drama and humor, it throws humor into a dramatic moment whenever it feels like it. It doesn't have a likable main character because, I'd argue it doesn't even have a main character. Was it Cyclops? Was it Jean? Was it Charles? Was it Raven? At no point during Apocalypse was I ever sure which was supposed to be the main character. As much as I hate to say it, this movie would have absolutely benefitted from Wolverine being the main character again, because then at least you have a protagonist, and clearly Bryan Singer can't actually function without Wolverine being the main character. And it shows, none of these characters feel like a main character. Cyclops gets a tragic introduction, Jean gets a big role in the climax, Charles plays kidnapping victim for most of this movie, and Raven serves as more of a Deus Ex Machina than a character actually being affected by one. At least with Wolverine, you'd have the basic building blocks needed for a functioning protagonist. 

Final Rating
Okay, I know I basically just wrote an essay on all the reasons you shouldn't see X-Men: Apocalypse, but in all honesty I didn't hate it. Like I said, the Sophie Turner is great as Jean Grey, Evan Peters is as entertaining as ever as Quicksilver, and the action is good enough to make you almost forget the 90 minutes of set-up it takes to get there. However, if you're someone like me who wants a balance of competent filmmaking and a fun action film... Go see Civil War. If you just want a popcorn flick, X-Men: Apocalypse isn't the worst thing out there.