Well, you have to admire Simon Kinberg's optimism, if you can tear yourself away from pitying him for it. With the Disney / 20th Century Fox takeover-deal now a paperwork exercise and its far-reaching effect on superhero franchises a headache in the making, the twelfth film in Fox's X-Men roster closes with a crane-shot of the School For Gifted Youngsters, accompanied by a stirring narration, boldly leaving an 'open road' approach for future stories to be told.
That this arrives after two of the absolute dullest hours audiences will see this year is glossed over with equal wistfulness.
PHOENIX Let us not chase this one around the houses for too long, X-Men: Dark Phoenix is not good. It's not awful, but that's only because the movie's not interesting enough to be awful. The cinematic equivalent of a contractual obligation album, it's two hours of watching people you know can do better*1 making it resolutely clear that they have no intention of doing so. What's the point? They're staring into the DVD bargain bin on a hiding to nothing. When Marvel Studios finally get round to bringing mutants into the MCU, they'll be rebooted and recast at absolute best. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
After a 1975 flashback to Jean Grey's traumatic childhood, we open properly in 1992 with Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) dispatching his best and brightest into the Earth's orbit to assist stricken United States space shuttle. What appears to be a solar storm is in fact something more malign, and in the kerfuffle Grey (Sophie Turner) absorbs a hitherto unimaginable amount of raw power, almost dying as a result.
Back on terra firma, Jean struggles to come to terms with her experience and terrifying new strengths, while a task force of shape-shifting aliens led by Jessica Chastain in an atrocious wig arrives to claim what they were after in space, the gift that Jean Grey - the dark phoenix - unsteadily holds…
ROACH Now that we're past the watershed of Future Past, the series*2 has been using its clout to re-craft the origins and fates of characters we've known for almost two decades. But Fox's longstanding cavalier approach to continuity means that this just comes over as 'yeah, thanks for the time and money you spent taking in those earlier flicks; they don't matter now by the way'. And this more than takes the edge off the new stories, too. The problem is that there's no jeopardy when the audience sees narrative consequence as a moot point, and even less when the cast are acting like that too.
Jean's struggle with newly heightened powers, repressed (and/or censored) memories of her past and fear for the future is nowhere near as emotionally complex as it should be (and Turner does not play this role well). Almost a side character in her own movie, cinematographer Mauro Fiore seems more interested in Jean's cleavage than her character. No, really.
In its quieter scenes, Dark Phoenix isn't particularly interesting, but when the action really ramps up it's positively boring. The bigger and louder the CGI mayhem becomes, the less it all means. That's a hurdle of which many modern movies fall afoul, granted, but with little actual story to act as a foundation in the first place, there's nothing for these sequences to even distract from. The driving force of the alien antagonists trying to steal back Jean's power is treated like a subplot, left over from an earlier draft of the screenplay and which can't be dropped completely because of a clause Chastain's contract. And It may seem a little late in the game for Fox to be introducing new, specially written characters, but lo and behold the debut of Captain Exposition™, a shapeshifter who mimics the appearance of central characters to read out a CliffsNotes summary of key scenes in the movie.
JOHNS But it's not just big, tonal, structural problems. On an entirely civilian nitpicking level - how come the team are teleporting from the X-Jet into a space shuttle which has a massively ruptured hull, yet they don't need to wear space suits? Nightcrawler pops one on towards the end of the mission, seemingly for no reason since he's been in and out of open space three times by then, as have Jean and Quicksilver. And speaking of such matters, how come the X-gang spend so much time fighting the alien enemies during the final train-heist battle, when Nightcrawler could just bamf each one away from the train and then return for the next, like Azazel in First Class? And speaking of those such matters, wasn't the heavy, heavy implication at the end of First Class that Azazel and Mystique were Nightcrawler's parents? Because the latter two are on missions together here and there's not so much as a sniff of that idea.
And it's amazing that a movie which is so visually meticulous in its effects can be so slapdash when it comes to the basics of serial storytelling. From First Class's 1962 onward, we've leapfrogged around ten years in each installment. So here we are thirty years later and the central characters seem to have only aged around a decade (in line with the real-world production schedules, of course). This can easily be explained for Jennifer Lawrence's chameleon Raven/Mystique, but just shaving James McAvoy's head as Xavier isn't going to cut it, lads (Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult aren't even awarded that concession - and let's leave aside that they're theoretically only a few years away from looking like Ian McKellen and Kelsey Grammer by this point).
Speaking of Mystique, how come she changes into her 'human' form here while knocking around in the mansion and there's no need for that subterfuge? We know Charles disapproves of this form as 'hiding her true self', yet in Dark Phoenix he doesn't bat an eyelid. Are we in a strand of continuity where they didn't have that previous conversation? On a similar note, we see Hank 'Beast' McCoy in his human-guise while in the depths of despair and grief, also within the walls of the school. Wouldn't this be a time when Hank would drop that pretence? He then turns 'human' when he's stunned by attackers in a later scene. But isn't the blue beast his natural resting form now? Isn't that his true self? Isn't the facade of duality the whole point of the X-Men movies?
AVON But in all honesty I probably can't score this one too lowly, if only because I went easy on Aquaman and this movie has nowhere near as many problems as DC's last offering. At least that was knowingly silly. But given the absolute heights of what the X-Men movies are capable of, Dark Phoenix is unforgivably weak.
I'm not even saddened to say that I look forward to no more of these films being made. 20th Century Fox have, over the years, told stories where outsiders band together to fight oppression and prejudice, where they learn the value of working as a team without losing sight of the individual, where they rise above those who hate and fear them to save everyone, including their persecutors. 20th century Fox have taken the quintessential essence of what superhero stories are supposed to be about, and watered it down to the point where I - a fan of superheroes - no longer care what happens to the X-Men. Well done guys, now give it back to Marvel.
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? There is.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? There isn't.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? There isn't.
• Is there a post-credits scene? There isn't.
If you're going to watch it at all, you may as well. This will be dire when witnessed through your TV, no matter how big that is. I saw Dark Phoenix in 3D, which was basically fine considering live-action rarely translates well into stereoscopy.
It's perhaps also worth noting that I saw it on opening day and in 'the big screen' with only ten other people, but that perhaps says more about the popularity of 3D than of the franchise itself (this was the only 3D screening of the day, the format really is on its absolute arse unless you're going for IMAX).
Completists may want to wait until the Blu-ray price drops significantly before adding it to their collection. Personally I'm not sure if I'll even bother doing that, and I say this as someone who eventually bought Apocalypse as a shelf-warmer.
Hahahahahahaha James McAvoy's good, but he's been this good and better elsewhere.
Y'know what, that's entirely possible.
Yes. There's a low-level Wilhelm scream during the train brawl. Fucking FINALLY. I've watched 59 movies at the cinema in 2019 so far, and Dark Phoenix has been the first one with a clear, unambiguous (albeit quiet) Wilhelm. I'm thankful for that, if nothing else.
Level 1: This movie is written and directed by Rogue One and Rebels producer, Simon Kinberg.
*2 Although I really shouldn't use that word. As a wise person recently noted, "There is no X-Men movie series. There are X-Men movies."[ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Logan (second-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 137 mins / Dir. James Mangold / Trailer
This is your spoiler-break. I mean, there's a thing up there which says spoilers, and any link which brought you here probably warned of them too, but trust me - there are some massive, honking-great plot spoilers after the break, and not like neat-plot-synposis ones, just discussion of the themes and events which will assume you've seen the film (and also be reasonably familiar with the other X-Men movies, as well). Anyway, sometimes an RSS-reader or social media link will pull through content from the beginning of the post. This paragraph is to get around that chunk containing spoilers. That's how considerate I am. If you came over here looking for spoiler-free words about Logan, my first-pass review should be what you're after.
Anyway, that should be enough stalling.
Proceed with caution…
Still here? Smashing. Now, as much as I love James Mangold's Logan (and I do), I have to confess that the film's trump card of Finality™ is nerfed slightly (for me at least) by the unasked question '…which timeline does this all take place in?'. The crescendo of a story doesn't have as much impact if you're not sure which story is actually being wrapped up. Notwithstanding the series' apparent inability to play by rules laid down in previous installments, Days of Future Past saw an active and deliberate move to set the cinematic course of events into a new and straight line. And it did so rather beautifully, I'll gladly admit.
The problem with continuity in the series seems to be with time itself, when dates are stamped on things and even when they're just implied. Back in 2000, the first X-Men movie opened with a scene set during the Second World War, captioned appropriately with "Poland 1944". The pinpointing makes absolute sense of course, for that's the precise historical moment we're seeing. When the film flips into the 'contemporary' setting, we get a location-tag accompanied by "the not to distant future". Which again, is fine as it avoids dating the film by specifying it as "2000".
In fact, the action taking place in the 'current' strand of most X-Men movies is usually alluded to be in the near and vague future. Yet from a retrospective point-of-view, the series often ties the story in to real-world events, from Origins: Wolverine's alternative-view of the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979, to First Class's retooling of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Now, leaving aside the fact that Future Past essentially erased the former (and all of the previously told stories set after 1973 for that matter), there was still only an ambiguous link between the 'present day' or futuristic stories being told, and those framed in an historical context. But in Days of Future Past, something curious happened. Kitty Pryde sent the consciousness of Wolverine back into his 1973 body, to avert the crisis they were now permanently trying to escape. And in the midst of some fairly heavyweight exposition, she let slip that the 'current' year was around 2023:
"For the rest of us, it'll be the only history that we know. It'll be like the last fifty years never happened." ~ Kitty Pryde.
Obviously 'fifty years' was a generalisation on her part, but it's going to be around that, and almost certainly not forty-five or fifty-five. So around 2023, then.
…and if Wolverine jumps back fifty years, it stands to all reason that once his mission's accomplished (and/or he's skewered and dumped in a river, whichever comes first) he'd zap forward fifty years in return. Which is what we see in the film's final moments, as our hairy-hero awakes in Charles Xavier's school in Westchester in the newly created timeline, his old friends and acquaintences still alive, having never perished in the first place. All is right with the world, and this is where we leave the characters. In 2023.
Skipping forward to the events of Logan, we don't get an on-screen caption so it's down to the screenplay to fill in the blanks for the audience. The things we know are that there have been no new Mutants born "in the last twenty five years". Through Transigen, Alkali and various shell-companies, the nefarious Dr Rice has helped implement a worldwide program of genetically-modified crops (corn-starch, to be precise) to prevent naturally occurring Mutants (and very probably weaken existing ones in the process), whilst also co-ordinating further generations of the Weapon X program, to precisely harness mutations for military/intelligence purposes. Oh, and in case you were wondering, it's 2029.
"…It's 2029, why are we still talking about Mutants?" ~ Man on Radio In Logan's Car.
Which means while Laura and presumably the rest of the X-23 program subjects were born in 2018 (Charles tells Logan at one point that "She's 11 and I'm fucking 90"), there'd have been no 'wild' Mutants born since 2004. Dr Rice's program has already been underway for at least two decades by the time Logan returns to Xavier's school in 2023. The heroes went through all that effort to avert the hard-genocide of Bolivar Trask's Sentinels, only to find themselves on the receiving end of a more insidious, soft variety, by eating The Wrong Cornflakes™.
All of this also means that when Logan wakes up and looks around the corridors of the once-again buzzing school, the youngest student there should be around 19, right? Since it's 2023 and the last Mutants were born in 2004?
Now those figures may be fleeting cast-members in the shots, but unless their particular super-powers involve not being allowed on the rides at theme parks, they're kind of short for 19yr olds, don'tcha think?
Given that some of the history mentioned in Logan contradicts what we've already seen in the 'fixed' continuity, one throwaway line from a nameless radio presenter suggests that this newest film doesn't take place in the established timeline at all. Logan isn't 'the' final chapter, it's a final chapter. Of a story we haven't actually been told yet.
Although Jackman has said in various places that this will be his last outing as Logan/Wolverine, there's no reason why more stories can't be told with the 'legacy' cast, just set earlier in the chronology. And there's no reason why Jackman couldn't return, short of just being tired of playing the role. We already have no real idea what occurred in the six years between the end of Days of Future Past and Logan. And when has X-continuity ever bothered Fox, anyway? They've already broken it to the point where it's no longer necessary for making a fantastic movie, as James Mangold has shown.
All I'm saying is, let's not write off Weapon X just yet…
But leaving all that aside, I love that the film is about growing old and dealing with guilt. It's heavily implied (but not specified either way*1) that either Charles or Logan are responsible for the death of their fellow Mutants at the School for Gifted Youngsters. Here, X-24 represents Logan's guilt over all the bad things he's done, while X-23 represents his guilt over all the good he never got round to.
• So in this film, Wolverine ends up protecting a clone-Wolverine from a clone-Wolverine, who kills Xavier then goes on to kill Wolverine, before being killed by clone-Wolverine. And if that doesn't crystallise existential-guilt, I don't know what does…
[ UPDATE: 06 MAR 2017 ]
So after writing, posting, editing, re-editing and sleeping on the above, another thing occurred to me. Regarding the 'no Mutants born since 2004' claim, there is of course the question of the children that Logan and Laura find at the Eden outpost in North Dakota. They've clearly been born in the intervening years, as the film illustrates. There are two possibilities for their previously unknown existence:
1) These are naturally occurring Mutants who've found their own way to Eden. Despite the measures put in place by Dr Rice's genetically modified cornstarch, life has, to quote Ian Malcolm, found a way. Coded messages within the in-universe X-Men comics, hidden in plain sight, have had the desired effect and enabled the gathering of new, young Mutants.
2) These children are escapees from various stages of Dr Rice's continuing Weapon X project. IIRC, it's stated in the film that Laura's X-23 generation consisted of ten children. There are more than that at Eden, and they're of varying ages (plus, it's unlikely that all of her classmates escaped to safety). It's also notable that many of them appear to have not yet reached adolescence, the point where mutations traditionally begin to reveal themselves, even though we see the children using their powers. This would suggest an artificially accelerated mutation, typical of a medical or weapons-research program. Additionally, the children at Eden have no parents or guardians present; it's unlikely to be the case that the biological parents of all these Mutants would abandon their offspring in the wilds of Dakota. Given Laura's circumstances, it's more probable that these children have escaped or been smuggled out at separate points until a plan could be formulated for their safety*2.
Irrespective of their origin, Charles Xavier has only been in telepathic contact with one of these Mutants: Laura. If The Westchester Incident only occurred a year before the events of Logan, that still leaves a significant amount of dead-air time beforehand. Has he been unaware of the others' presence because of his weakened state, because of his reverse-Cerebro farm-bunker, or because the children were somehow shielded at the Transigen headquarters?
Either way, it's Logan himself who tells Charles that 'no Mutants have been born in twenty five years', and the point isn't argued save for Laura. And as they're unaware of the new generation, the line itself is incongruous with having children in their early teens at Westchester a mere six years earlier.
The main point still stands, I think Logan happens in an alternative timeline.
[ /UPDATE ]
Other (slightly more flippant) questions I have after watching the movie again:
• Is Wolverine's entire skeleton coated in Adamantium like in the old continuity, or does he only have the implanted claws now? Because Laura's meant to be based on him, and her notes just say 'implants', and you couldn't very well coat the bones of a child who's still growing, using the world's strongest metal now could you? She'd be gradually crushed by her own imposed-superpower. That'd be a dark spin-off.
• How come the X-Men universe has X-Men toys and comics which are exactly the same as the audience-universe X-Men toys and comics? For most of these movies, the mutants have been a thinly-veiled metaphor for the LGBT community, constantly teetering on the edge of public mistrust and often the victims of outright prejudice. Yet in 2029 the general consensus has turned (and long before that point, remember) to "fuck it, let's make a 12" action figure of the most butch, murdery actual real-life Mutant, but wearing this yellow spandex outfit. That seems appropriate".
• How come Gabriela's phone doesn't have an unlock-code? She's already hidden this crucial story-prop incredibly badly so that Logan can find it (yet apparently not so badly that her murderers could get to it and destroy all the evidence first), then he just pops it on and starts watching the conveniently edited secret-documentary. And then when the power dies (I don't know about your mobile, but my phone bugs the shit out of me for about ten minutes rather than just flashing up a battery-icon then switching off within a second) and Logan recharges the phone (nice to see USB cables still ubiquitous in 2029), it just pops back on ready to resume play. No startup sequence, no unlock-code or welcome screen. And don't get me started on Logan's own iPhone 6.
• Also, how come Logan's hair and beard grow back instantly if they're sheared off by an atomic explosion, but when six mischievous urchins decide to give him a trim, they just stay that way? Is super-hairdressing their mutation?
*1 Xavier's "What did you do?" line, and Logan's reticence implies that the latter could have wiped out the students in an attack (which would tie in with the Old Man Logan comic-book, upon which this film is loosely based). But Xavier's later confession of "I did a terrible thing" suggests the students and teachers could have been killed during one of his seizures. That said, we hear a radio report stating that it's been "one year" since the Westchester incident which injured hundreds but had only six fatalities. Whether the reported deaths included Mutants or not isn't clarified. [ BACK ]
*2 Although let's not forget that the author(s) of the in-universe X-Men comics seem to know all about safe-havens and grand-plans, the likes of which even Professor X himself is unaware. I'm sure that'll be covered in the potential New Mutants spin-off, by which time they'll probably have changed the continuity again... [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Logan (first-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 15 / 137 mins / Dir. James Mangold / Trailer
Okay, the sunset glinting behind Adamantium claws on the poster may not be the most subtle of messages, but it's clear from the marketing-campaign for Logan that Fox wanted to make a very different type of movie this time. Gone are the pouting, dynamic, crowded montage shots and lens-flared logos; here's a tired old man and a single word in Helvetica Black. There'll be less fuss this time. And so, around thirty of the faithful gathered in Screen 1 for the midnight-mass of a simpler sermon*1.
And a different type of movie was, indeed, what we got. It's still very Wolverine™, but with far less of an X-Men feel (despite being inextricably linked and frequently referenced). James Mangold is at the helm again, and the film has more weight and consequence than his Samurai homage, and is far angrier than Origins as a result. The year is 2029*2 and mutants as we know them appear to be all but extinct. Logan is lying low in Mexico, growing old and sick himself while nursing a severely depleted Charles Xavier, who is now prone to seizures which are a danger to himself and everyone around him. And into their lives is thrust a young girl; scared, wild and a complete liability. Her past is a secret that Xavier and Wolverine will have to unlock if there's to be any hope for the future. To say more would be too much for this first-pass*3.
Hugh Jackman's on reliably strong form, lower on the quips this time around and higher on the actual drama. Similarly amplified is Patrick Stewart, adding more depth to his existing character whenever Xavier isn't 'medicated to a safe distance'. And I'd like to say that young Dafne Keen steals the show as Laura, but short of her action scenes (of which there are plenty), she ends up jostling for position with her co-leads. Don't get me wrong, she's great, but she isn't given the room to shine until later in the film (despite being the most furious thing in it from Act I).
And what Wolverine lacks in one-liners, he makes up for blade-work. As was noted in the trade papers around this time last year, lessons were learned from Deadpool in that you can make a comic-book movie ridiculously violent and still sell enough tickets to justify the exercise commercially. It's never lingering or too exploitative, but if you've wondered what it would look like to see a gang-member or mercenary have Adamantium claws skewering their heads? Look no further. Look no further many times, in fact. The film earns is 15-certificate in the first ten minutes and keeps it proudly on display thereafter. It's probably not unfair to say that this is the Wolverine movie fans have been waiting for, for the last seventeen years or so…
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? …see below.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? No.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? No.
• Is there a post-credits scene? No.
I told you it was different…
Well y'know, Wolverine-type movies.
If you're going to see it at all, see it big.
I think so.
Although I'll be watching it again, just to check.
In this series, it may well be.
I shouldn't imagine so.
You know that thing when you see "AAIIEEE!" written in a comic-book and that's the speech-bubble equivalent of a Wilhelm Scream? Well it is, and that's in this film. So yes.
Level 2: This film's got that Richard E. Grant in it, and he was in that Withnail And I with Ralph 'Ric Olié' Brown…
*1 While an audience of around thirty doesn't sound like a lot (and indeed isn't), we can take comfort in the fact that it at least triples the footfall for last year's midnight-showing of Apocalypse, even if that was a turnout which the film kind of deserved. Also working in the film's favour tonight was Fox's scheduling-gimmick. This wasn't actually a midnight screening, but a one at twenty three minutes past ten. As in 10:23. As in X23, in reference to one of the characters in the film. Although by the time we'd enjoyed the requisite amount of adverts, trailers and adverts, it was more like X49, to be fair. Still, I mustn't grumble about being able to do my late-night cinema viewing at a slightly more sociable time. [ BACK ]
*2 There are self-driving cargo-containers in the 2029, but Logan's got an iPhone 6 and people are still vaping. Sometimes it's best not to question the future too intensely.
[ BACK ]
*3 Yes, unlike Apocalypse, I'm actually planning on seeing this again, at which point there will be spoiler-ific words. It's not like I'm sworn off Apocalypse, I just haven't bothered watching it since that first time. Waiting for the BluRay to come down to under a tenner, by which time I might have forgotten how problematic the film is… [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
My reaction when I finally sat down at home just before three in the morning, was that maybe an eight-hour triple-bill is the enemy of clarity and concentration. Watching two movies I'm familiar with (especially when they're not short) directly before a new installment is perhaps the best way to inadvertently dull the senses a little, so that any nuance and detail blends into the background. I certainly enjoyed X-Men: Apocalypse on a superficial level, but I readily admit that my attention was wandering in the last hour. So I quickly typed up some notes and went to sleep on it. Of course the next day, I realised that my less-than-glowing response to the film was far from unusual; in fact, I probably liked it more than many critics.
The problem isn't one of hype versus reality (cf BvS:DoJ), but more that Apocalypse is a very generic superhero/disaster movie in an age which has outgrown that format. Due to the number of characters involved in the story the film takes far too long to get started, giving us catchup/introductions for each of the main players, incorporating a brief setup*1 for a villain so one-dimensional that you'll be looking back on Darth Yashida with a sense of glowing nostalgia (he's essentially Ultron, but without the sardonic humour or, ironically, the self-awareness). There's a lot of pouting and frowning in the second-act, and then the final hour is one massive fight-sequence. This isn't two-and-a-half hours full of detailed character-building, nor is it two-and-a-half hours of too many things happing at once. This is really one thing happening for far too long with too many mutants shoehorned into the screenplay (cf Last Stand). Once again, the Magneto sub-strand feels like it could be its own film; maybe after the next reboot, eh?
Elsewhere, the Four Horsemen motif seems to be less of a biblical/mythical reference-point, and more an excuse to use Metallica on the soundtrack. A brief blast of their 1983 ditty in the background would have been a nice nod, this just feels heavy-handed. The rest of the (scored) soundtrack by John Ottman makes the right noises in the right places, but lacks any real personality, other than the recurring main-theme from earlier movies.
To be fair, the X-Men franchise has always been patchy so none of this should come as any surprise, but First Class, Future Past and Deadpool seemed to be marking an upward trend which would put Fox's mutant-universe on an equal footing with the MCU. Alas, this film is more of a snake than the ladder they'd hoped for...
The business-end:
• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? Maybe; see below.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? Yes.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? No.
• Is there a post-credits scene? Yes.
By no means as bad as many reviews would have you believe. I still find it incredible, almost inconceivable, that Days Of Future Past went to such great and pained lengths to wipe the story-palette clean for future-use, then followed that up with a movie so linear and pedestrian that it could basically have taken place at any point in the timeline. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate Apocalypse the film, but Apocalypse the character just isn't interesting enough to build that film around. And with an antagonist this one-note, what choice do our heroes have other than to fight fire with fire? (oops, another Metallica reference!)
To paraphrase Magneto, "They are the future, Charles, not you…"
Characteristically, the earlier X-Men movies; cinematically, Man of Steel.
For maximum oomph, sure.
Don't bother with the 3D, though.
Probably, although it's the film's ambition itself is the biggest sticking point for me.
Afraid not.
Nah.
Pretty sure I heard one buried in the 'Stryker' segment, but can't be sure at this point.
Level 1: Well, (other than the glaring and rather tactless Return of the Jedi script-reference that every other review has picked up on and which I've avoided dissecting, but still feel I can't not mention…) we've got a pretty sweet saga thing going on! Visual effects gurus John Dykstra and Daniel Brimer from the classic trilogy have brought their talents to Apocalypse, meanwhile Rose 'Dormé' Byrne is here representing the prequels, as well as Oscar 'Dameron' from the sequels.
That doesn't happen every day...
*1 It's interesting to note that the resurrection of the ancient being known as Apocalypse is facilitated by a character who had an equally pivotal role the last time they were on-screen. It's less interesting (if anything, baffling) to note that this destructive force is unleashed upon the earth essentially because that character leaves a door open for the first time in 6,000 years…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
