X-Men: Apocalypse - Film Review

As we walked into the theater to watch X-Men: Apocalypse, the 5,000th entry in the X-Men film series and the 4th to be directed by Bryan Singer, my friend Richie pointed something out to me:

“How is this movie taking place 10 years after Days of Future Past, but none of the characters look any older? I mean, if Magneto was, like, 12-years-old in 1944 and this film takes place in the 80s, wouldn’t he be 60-years-old now?”

X-Men: Apocalypse never bothers to address this gaping hole in logic. It appears Singer was so enthralled by the idea of an X-Men film taking place in the 80s he forgot to offer any justification or reasoning for it. With the exception of some fashion styles and pop culture references, the decision to place the film in the decade is totally arbitrary. All style, no substance.

That’s probably the best way to describe X-Men: Apocalypse as a whole. Singer has traded the emotional subtext of his earlier entries for flashy superpowers and explosions. (I feel like he’s still desperate to prove he can make BIG summer movies after his 2006 film Superman Returns was chastised for containing so little action) And while the film is nowhere near as bad as the worst this series has to offer (I’m looking at you, X-Men: The Last Stand), and not even particularly bad in general, it is easily Singer’s least engaging entry to date.

Perhaps the biggest issue is an overstuffed script lacking in nuance. Singer developed the story with past collaborators Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris, who co-wrote X-Men 2 and Superman Returns, and Simon Kinberg, who penned Apocalypse’s screenplay. Within the film’s first 20-minutes, we’ve hopped all over the globe and been introduced to multiple characters, some familiar and some new. Nothing is given any room to breathe and the sheer amount we’re expected to invest in without any context weighs down any attempts at effective storytelling. It’s so focused on being BIG and EXCITING that it forgets to sweat the small stuff and give us something to care about.

On the plus side, Singer’s strong visuals are still present and accounted for, though I’ll admit they’re bogged down by an over-reliance on green screen and mediocre visual effects. He has the benefit of working with an extraordinary team of actors, who are able to pick up the slack, garnering empathy despite a weak screenplay. James McAvoy continues to be effortlessly charming as Professor Charles Xavier. Michael Fassbender gets by on raw talent, but is saddled with an illogical character arc and motivation. Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique is thrust into a leadership role (the X-Men series always gives that position to its Oscar winners), and thankfully Lawrence seems a bit more up to the task, her performance being slightly less sleepy than it was in Days of Future Past.

The excellent new additions to the cast Tye Sheridan, Sophie Turner and Kodi Smitt-Mcphee, playing Cyclops, Jean Grey and Nightcrawler respectively, don’t get much to do. Their presence indicates the possibility of a much better film on the horizon that focuses on Xavier’s students - their relationships and their training. I couldn’t help wishing that was the film we ended up with instead of what we got. There’s also Olivia Munn as Psylocke, Alexandra Shipp as Storm and Ben Hardy as Angel. None of them are fully fleshed out and just stand around and try to look cool while having little to no impact on anything that happens.

And what of Apocalypse himself? He might be the film’s biggest problem. The character has no depth and remains painfully undeveloped through the entirety of the film. His primary motivation is (stop me if you’ve heard this one before) World Domination. Great. Why even bother casting Oscar Isaac in the role? The excellent and accomplished young actor disappears under layers of makeup, prosthetics and armor, and the character requires so little heavy lifting acting-wise, there’s no point to having such a talented actor fill the part. Such a waste.

So much of X-Men: Apocalypse feels like a waste. Singer and his team have involved just about every single character you could possibly imagine, but they’ve put forth so little effort to involve the audience. The storytelling focus and underlying emotional themes that made the first two X-Men films and even First Class and Days of Future Past so effective are nowhere to be found. It’s just another garish display of special effects, albeit a passively entertaining one.

So after all this, you might be shocked to hear that I didn’t hate X-Men: Apocalypse. I actually moderately enjoyed it. I know, right? I’ve gone on for so long about what’s wrong with it, that I’m actually pretty surprised myself. Its flaws are many, but weren’t substantial enough to deter my enjoyment. It just barely gets by on the talent of its cast and the competence of Singer’s visuals. There were action sequences that delighted me (gotta love Evan Peters' Quicksilver) and some intriguing ideas amidst the madness. I just wish Singer would have focused less on trying to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe and more on his own strengths. As much as I love Singer and appreciate what he's accomplished with this franchise, it might be time for a fresh young talent to take the reigns and steer it back on course.

FINAL RATING: 3/5

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 really emphasizes the Part 1 over anything else

Before we get started, let me level with you on my opinions regarding The Hunger Games series. That way, you’ll know where we stand right from the get-go and, hopefully, no one gets hurt. Sound good? Cool.

I really enjoyed the first Hunger Games book. I read it in less than twenty-four hours and then immediately headed to the local theater to see the movie version. It was a worthy adaptation and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Despite liking both the book and the movie, I wasn’t much interested in continuing the series. It just didn’t grab me in the same way that The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter did, but at the very least it was leagues better than those god-awful Twilight books/movies.

Eventually I got around to reading Catching Fire, which left me feeling not very...caught...on fire. It wasn't much more than a rehash of the first book’s events and Suzanne Collins’s prose just isn’t compelling enough to distract from the lack of fresh ideas. I went out to see the film adaptation of the book last year and was pleasantly surprised. Not only was it a major improvement over its source material, but it was leagues better than its predecessor. For once, I was actually excited about the franchise and the direction it was taking, despite the frustrating news that the final book would be arbitrarily split into two films.

I knew the third book was the most divisive amongst the series’ fans, but I was still willing to give it a shot. I moderately enjoyed the first half of the book, finding it more interesting than Catching Fire mainly due to the fact that it wasn’t just a rehash of the first book. Sadly, Mockingjay’s climax and ending had to go and ruin everything. It’s the very definition of underwhelming and, without spoiling particulars, is deeply unsatisfying in regards to the outcome of its plot and characters. Nevertheless, I was so impressed with the work that director Francis Lawrence, aided by his spectacular cast and crew, did with Catching Fire that I held out hope the film adaptation would improve on the mediocre nature of its source material.

So, good news first: Mockingjay Part 1 is without a doubt a major improvement over the book. Part of this is due to the fact that we don’t have to deal with Collins’ mind-numbing first-person narrative style writing, which makes Katniss come across as nothing more than an empty shell of a girl who has no idea who she wants to date more – the hunky Gale or the thoughtful Peeta. Seriously, we’re in the midst of a massive rebellion and all this girl can think about is which boy she likes more? So much for strong female characters. Thankfully, the screenplay forgoes the love triangle nonsense of the book. It’s mentioned only in passing and put to rest as quickly as possible. There’s not much question as to who Katniss really loves, so we don’t have to put up with all of her BS moaning about it.

Mockingjay’s screenplay sorely misses the talents of screenwriters Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire; 127 Hours) and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine; Toy Story 3), both of whom were far more than Catching Fire’s source material deserved. Series newcomers Peter Craig (The Town) and Danny Strong (Lee Daniels’ The Butler), do a decent job of adapting the novel, making due with what they have. If the proceedings feel a bit less charming and a bit more straightforward this time 'round, it’s mostly due to the novel’s content more than anything else.

Truth be told, the best moments of the film are moments that aren’t even heavily featured in the book – a rebellious attack on a large dam set to Jennifer Lawrence’s haunting performance of ‘The Hanging Tree;’ a thrilling covert rescue mission sequence, which was only mentioned in passing in the book.

Despite the solid quality of the screenplay, there were a couple of baffling ‘on-the-nose’ moments – in one instance a character in a video broadcast shouts, “They’re coming for you! You’ve got to get out of there!” Immediately after the video shuts off, a character responds with, “It’s a warning. They’re coming for us,” as if it’s news to anybody. Not sure why that wasn’t left on the cutting room floor.

At this point, it’s no surprise that the cast is the shining beacon of this franchise. They elevate the material to heights way beyond the quality of the source material. Jennifer Lawrence gives another spectacular performance, instilling Katniss with a level of humanity and depth that was barely present in the novels. It's a shame her character becomes so passive this time around (And sadly, if the movie stays true to the novel, she won't have much more to do in Part 2). Liam Hemsworth is given a bit more to work with as Gale this time around and Josh Hutcherson, though barely present for most of the film’s running time, makes a major impact.

The supporting cast here is one of the finest seen in any film, let alone a big budget franchise. Everyone delivers quality work – Donald Sutherland returns as the ruthless President Snow, Woody Harrelson continues the ongoing charmfest that is his performance as Haymitch and Philip Seymour Hoffman reminds us of how much we’ll miss his remarkable abilities as an actor. New cast addition Julianne Moore manages to fit right in with these talents, but sadly isn’t given much more to do beyond a one-note characterization.

The film’s biggest drawback, outside of the inherent weaknesses of its source material, is the inexplicable decision to stretch the proceedings out over the course of two films. Mockingjay barely holds enough material for a single film, let alone two. Obviously, the suits at Lionsgate looked at The Hobbit, Harry Potter, and Twilight and saw the benefits of making people pay twice to see a single movie (or in The Hobbit's case even three times), but it’s such a shame they went the quantity over quality route considering how strong the franchise has been up to this point. It doesn’t entirely ruin the film, but it really emphasizes the Part 1 nature of the whole thing. It feels incomplete and it undermines the quality. This could have been a really strong ending for the trilogy, but instead we’re being served a haphazard mishmash.

Will Part 2 justify the split? I doubt it. The book’s 2nd half and ultimate outcome are incredibly weak and despite this franchise’s track record I seriously doubt the filmmakers will be able to rise above its shortcomings. For the time being, Mockingjay Part 1 offers serviceable entertainment for the franchise’s fans, but is a definite step back for the series overall.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5