Swiss Army Man - Film Review

If at any point during your viewing of Swiss Army Man, you find yourself thinking, “What the hell have I gotten myself into?” know this: you are not alone. The tale of a man marooned on a desert island who befriends a talking corpse with magical abilities (including powerful flatulence), was met with walk-outs at its Sundance premiere. If what you’ve seen in the trailers hasn’t piqued your interest, the final product will do little to change your mind. If, however, you approach the film with an open heart and mind, you’ll discover Swiss Army Man to be one of the most unique, funny and oddly touching efforts released this year.

Swiss Army Man is the brainchild of filmmaking duo Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, a.k.a. ‘Daniels.’ They got their start directing music videos, their most notable being ‘Turn Down For What,' which features a young man humping things into oblivion. If you’ve had the immense pleasure of seeing the video for yourself, you’re well-aware these guys have a distinct, completely off-the-wall vision and that manic mindset translates to the big screen in spectacular fashion. This is without question one of the most visually unique and beautiful films I’ve seen. There’s a transcendent, dream-like quality to everything that happens; the film seems to exist on a whole other plane of existence.

But while the Daniels certainly deserve credit for coming up with this strange and wonderful thing, it’s Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe who make Swiss Army Man truly soar. Even when the storytelling doesn’t fully gel – it meanders from time to time, and the ending in particular feels purposefully designed to polarize the audience - their heartfelt, fully devoted performances keep you riveted. And while Dano is always a delight, it’s Radcliffe in particular who deserves heaps of praise for his portrayal of a mostly immobile and expressionless corpse. He imbues Manny (the corpse) with such humanity and genuine curiosity that you instantly fall in love with the guy. A large portion of the film features Dano’s character Hank explaining the intricacies of life and love and all their complexities to help Manny remember what it means to be alive. The simple profundities of Hank’s explanations and Manny’s innocent, wide-eyed reactions and comprehension of them are both hilarious and deeply moving. In a perfect world, Dano and Radcliffe would win all the awards. For now, they’ll just have to settle for my undying love and affection, which I am happy to dish out in spades.

Another element of Swiss Army Man that stands out is its soundtrack. Composed and performed by Andy Hull and Robert McDowell of Manchester Orchestra, it sounds like something Animal Collective would have recorded after they’d spent a month alone in a forest under the influence of every drug imaginable (come to think of it, this might be how they record their music regardless). I loved the way the score was integrated with the action. At random points throughout the film, both Manny and Hank spontaneously burst into song (Dano and Radcliffe should seriously consider recording an album together). There’s a particular point where Manny breaks into a melancholic take of Cotton Eye Joe, and despite the song’s inherently ridiculous nature, this rendition is surprisingly beautiful and the way it plays in the movie nearly moved me to tears. I know that sounds insane, but you’ll understand when you see it.

Come to think of it, that’s probably the best way to describe Swiss Army Man: something that seems inherently ridiculous when explained, but when experienced, has the power to move and affect you in ways you never could have imagined. Though its plotting might be uneven, its ending somewhat unsatisfying, Swiss Army Man is undeniably effective as a visual and emotional experience. The Daniels have paved the way for a promising career and Radcliffe and Dano have further cemented themselves as my man-crushes. What more could anyone ask?

FINAL RATING: 4/5

The Secret Life of Pets - Film Review

Is it wrong for me to dislike a kids movie featuring a cast of cuddly animals? Because I really didn’t like The Secret Life of Pets, the latest animated effort from Illumination Entertainment. (Yes, that’s the studio responsible for those adorably obnoxious Minions.) I know I’m not technically the target audience for this sort of thing, but couldn’t the filmmakers have included elements to engage its older audience members? An involving plot, perhaps? Or maybe even some likable characters? If you want to see a great animated movie featuring cute animals that won’t insult your intelligence, you’re better off staying home and re-watching Zootopia.

After a promising opening – a montage showcasing a number of pets getting up to all kinds of mischief after their owners have left for the day (if you’ve seen the trailers, you’ve already seen this) – things take an immediate downward spiral. The basic plot rundown is this: Max (Louis C.K.), a loyal terrier living a happy life with his owner Katie (Ellie Kemper, star of Netflix’s Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt), gets a nasty surprise when she returns home with a new dog named Duke (Modern Family’s Eric Stonestreet). Duke is giant, hairy and intent on making Max’s life miserable, so Max schemes ways to get rid of him. During a walk in the park, the two of them get in a fight and become separated from the rest of the group. They'll have to put aside their differences and work together in order to get home safely.

Basically, it’s Toy Story minus everything that made Toy Story so great.

Pets’ biggest failing is an overall lack of cohesion. It jumps from scene to scene with hardly any connective tissue; it’s just an endless array of uninspired sight gags and potty humor. It’s rarely funny and frequently annoying. Even worse, its characters suck. Neither Max or Duke are fleshed out well enough for their selfish behavior to come across as justified. In Toy Story, Woody was jealous of Buzz because Buzz was Andy’s new favorite toy and no longer paid any attention to Woody; in The Secret Life of Pets, Duke is a complete asshole for no reason, immediately justifying Max’s dislike of him. Buzz was never a jerk. He was just oblivious to his situation. Woody behaved badly, but we understood why he was behaving badly. Over the course of the film, he realized the error of his ways and he and Buzz worked together to get back home to Andy.

Pets never justifies its main duo’s actions. It boils down to two unlikable protagonists doing mean things to each other until they become friends for some reason. There’s no actual character development; they don’t bond because they’ve overcome tremendous obstacles or because they have a moment of realization where they understand each other a little better. They bond because they stumble on a sausage factory and, after a random, bizarre sausage acid-trip sequence where they eat everything in sight, they decide they’re best friends. Compelling stuff.

There’s a whole subplot involving a bunch of Max’s friends trying to locate and rescue him that never takes off either, despite the presence of some talented folks including Lake Bell, Jenny Slate, Albert Brooks, Dana Carvey and Hannibal Buress. Kevin Hart shows up too as a fast-talking bunny, determined to take revenge on the human race after being abandoned by his owner years ago. His character seems specifically set up to sell stuffed animals and a potential spinoff series, and contributes little else.

Maybe I would have given The Secret Life of Pets a pass if it was even remotely funny, but it’s not. It’s all slapstick-focused with some poop jokes thrown in for good measure because, you know, kids love poop jokes. The most disappointing part of all is that there's a really good concept here that remains completely unrealized. Illumination has shown itself capable of delivering heartfelt efforts in the past (Despicable Me for one), but The Secret Life of Pets doesn’t come anywhere close to that level. It squanders its talented cast and made me hate the sight of cute, talking animals. For that reason alone, I will never forgive it.

FINAL RATING: 2/5

Independence Day: Resurgence - Film Review

I was 9 when I first saw Roland Emmerich’s indisputable masterpiece Independence Day. I was immediately smitten by its winning combination of groundbreaking special effects and rollicking alien action, not to mention the cast: Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum, a pre-mental breakdown Randy Quaid, a sleepy Bill Pullman and Harry FREAKING Connick, Jr.?! Baby, you got a stew goin'!

My obsession with Independence Day defied all reason and logic. Its gaping plot holes and derivative nature didn’t matter to my 9-year-old brain; I was in love. I was so in love, in fact, that when I finally got the film on VHS, I would wake up at 4 a.m. so I could watch it before I had to go to school. Roland Emmerich’s spectacle-centric sensibilities had never been (and would never be again) so perfectly executed. To this day, the film holds a place in my heart, even as I acknowledge its abundant absurdities.

Now, coming at least 15 years too late, we have a sequel. Independence Day: Resurgence is the latest attempt to bank off a wildly successful product of the 90s. It is just as idiotic as I expected, containing frequently hysterical moments of baffling stupidity, but it lacks the original’s simpler pleasures. It buries itself with nonsensical plotting, a dull new cast and an overabundance of terrible CGI and green screen work. While the original Independence Day will never be lauded for its deep character development or intricate plotting, it gave us characters we could invest in and a straightforward story we could understand. The stakes felt genuine because we had a human connection to them. Resurgence has none of this. Its many plot points are jumbled and senseless; its characters are there to stare and shoot at the CGI mayhem. There isn’t a single moment of genuine excitement to be found in this mess.

20 years have passed since humanity emerged triumphant against a massive alien invasion. But the people of Earth haven’t just been sitting around on their asses over the past two decades. Utilizing the alien technology left behind in the first invasion, they’ve improved their own tenfold, developing more advanced weaponry and transportation in anticipation of future attacks. This unfamiliar setting is only one of Resurgence's many problems. Earth is practically unrecognizable, feeling just as alien as the actual aliens. When the aliens attacked in the original film, the audience had something they could recognize and latch onto. Those provocative images of 15-mile wide spaceships over national landmarks remain unforgettable and provided both scale and a genuine sense of danger. Everything about this fancy new Earth looks like it was created by a special effects team in a computer.

After a hefty chunk of boring exposition which awkwardly explains everything that's changed on Earth in the past 20 years, the aliens finally invade, sporting bigger spaceships, bigger weapons and bigger explosions. Leading the defense is Captain Steven Hiller’s stepson Dylan, played by Jessie T. Usher. Dylan has followed in his stepfather’s footsteps, becoming a combat pilot and is clearly intended to be the Will Smith stand-in. Sadly, Usher exhibits none of the charisma Smith had in spades and it only serves to make the gap left in Smith's absence all the more apparent. The other new leads, Liam Hemsworth and Maika Monroe, don’t fare much better. Hemsworth does everything he can to make his part work, strutting his leading man smile and muscles as often as he can, but he has absolutely nothing to work with; Monroe spends most of her time looking vapid and/or upset. None of them come close to meeting the level of the original cast, which isn't so much their fault as it is the fault of the dreadful screenplay, which was written by no less than FIVE writers, including Emmerich himself, his creative partner Dean Devlin and James Vanderbilt.

Speaking of the original cast, Jeff Goldblum returns with his stumbling, scatterbrained delivery which makes him impossible not to love. Bill Pullman is absolutely hysterical reprising his role as ex-president Thomas Whitmore, whose alien-induced nightmares have turned him into a crazy person with a truly fantastic beard. Other returning cast members, such as Vivica A. Fox and Judd Hirsch, function as nothing more than extended cameos. Even Brent Spiner’s wide-eyed, crazy-haired scientist Dr. Okun is back with a much expanded role. (“But, I thought he died in the first Independence Day,” you say. “Screw you,” says Roland Emmerich.) As Dr. Okun, Spiner is Resurgence’s Jar-Jar Binks, stumbling about and delivering painful one-liners at the most inappropriate times. The rest of the returning cast manages to get through the thing with some semblance of dignity still intact, but Spiner’s performance is just plain embarrassing.

So, while Independence Day: Resurgence is by no means a good film, I’ll give it props for being an unabashed display of overwhelming stupidity. It inspired in me both raucous fits of laughter and bouts of intense bafflement. But by replacing its predecessor’s unpretentious charms with an onslaught of meaningless computer-generated action and convoluted plotting, it loses that film’s sense of simple, goofy fun. You’re laughing at it this time around, not with it, and that makes all the difference.

FINAL RATING: 1.5/5

The Shallows - Film Review

“There just aren’t enough shark movies in the world,” said absolutely no one at any point in the history of life.

Ever since Jaws paved the way for the Summer Blockbuster back in 1975, numerous efforts have been produced in the hopes of replicating its success. You can find most of them in the $2.99 DVD bin at your local Wal-Mart. While the ‘Shark Attack’ genre has certainly been prolific, no one would argue in favor of its quality. In fact, other than Jaws, I don’t know if I could name a single other ‘shark movie’ worth your time. (Sharknado, maybe? Shark Tale? Deep Blue Sea? Does Open Water count?)

Until now!

In the midst of a summer movie season overwhelmed by mediocre sequels comes The Shallows, a thrilling attempt to inject the genre with some honest-to-God credibility and genuine scares. That it manages to succeed on any level is a testament to Jaume Collet-Serra’s talents as a director and Blake Lively’s excellent performance. Sure, the story doesn’t amount to much more than ‘Blake Lively vs. Vindictive Shark,’ but it’s a laser-focused, nail-bitingly effective effort and a more-than-welcome diversion from the big-budget insanity released the same weekend. (And, don’t worry, I plan on seeing Independence Day: Resurgence sometime this holiday weekend, so you should be hearing all about that big-budget insanity relatively soon)

At the film’s start, we meet Nancy (Lively). She’s a med student at a crossroads. Watching her mom succumb to cancer has caused her to question whether or not the medical profession is right for her. She opts for some soul-searching (soul-surfing?) on the beach where her mother first discovered she was pregnant with Nancy years ago.

These opening scenes unfold in a lighthearted, leisurely manner with an emphasis on the beautiful setting. Collet-Serra milks the scenery for all its worth, taking full advantage of the breathtaking images. The dialogue and exposition are a bit clunky; the screenplay does its best to cram as much as it can regarding Nancy’s backstory and family life into the first 15 minutes. It’s clearly designed to help us empathize with Nancy, as the rest of The Shallows is entirely devoted to her desperate attempts to survive, but it can’t help feeling a little too on-the-nose. Nancy’s dad even goes so far as to give her a pep talk that explicitly spells out her character arc. Truthfully, Lively is such a likable personality, Anthony Jaswinski screenplay could have gotten away with scrapping the awkward FaceTime conversations entirely and focused solely on her.

None of this matters, however, once the shark shows up. From that point on, The Shallows grips you tight and doesn’t let go for the remainder of its runtime. Collet-Serra knows just the right ways to make you squirm, whether it’s the unflinching close-ups of Nancy mending a brutal shark bite, or the near-unbearable tension milked any time she goes into the water to fetch a necessary tool. He also fully embraces the inherent ridiculousness of the genre. Deep down, we know no shark would ever behave like this, but who cares? It’s all about the excitement, the thrills, the terror and, most importantly, the fun. The Shallows takes itself just seriously enough to get us on board, but never forgets to wink at the audience to remind us it’s not taking itself too seriously.

But despite Collet-Serra’s impressive technique, Lively is the one who carries The Shallows to victory. For the majority of the movie, she’s the only person on screen and she commands it with ease, balancing the fine line between being frantic and intelligent without becoming annoying. It’s difficult not to root for her, not just because of the grisly fate that awaits her if she doesn’t succeed, but because she evokes genuine audience empathy.

Labeling The Shallows ‘the best shark movie since Jaws’ isn’t much of an honor, considering the competition, but The Shallows is an undoubtedly fun, throwaway experience. Its simplicity is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness, but the talent both on screen and behind the camera is too strong to deny. If you’re in the mood to see a terrorized Lively kick some ass, now’s your chance.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5 

Finding Dory - Film Review

I’ll admit, Finding Dory wasn’t on my radar in the slightest. While I enjoyed Finding Nemo, I was never as taken with it as I was with, say, Toy Story or Wall-E. And while Pixar has established itself as one of the most reliable brands in storytelling, even the studio’s staunchest supporters will admit their track record as of late has been sporadic, to say the least (Inside Out notwithstanding). And, let’s face it, is there really a strong need for a Finding Nemo sequel aside from Disney wanting to make more money?

Thankfully, Finding Dory eschews any expectations of mediocrity. It’s consistently delightful, delivering all the charm and humor we’ve come to expect from the studio. Andrew Stanton (writer/director of A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo and Wall-E) has crafted a thoughtful examination on the nature of family and how one can achieve great things, despite whatever physical or mental ailments might stand in the way. It might not be on the level of Finding Nemo, but it’s still a worthy follow up, fitting comfortably in Pixar’s ‘good, not great’ category, which is a pretty solid place to be, all things considered. Fans of the first film should walk away feeling wholly satisfied and then some.

As you no doubt have guessed, this time around the focus is on everyone’s favorite blue tang Dory. Things kick off with a heartbreaking prologue, which right off the bat put to rest any fears I had of this being a shallow sequel. (An ocean reference! Let me see if I can keep this up) In it, we’re introduced to baby Dory and see what her life was like before she ended up on her own and grew up to be Ellen DeGeneres. As a child, Dory’s parents did everything in their power to help her cope with her memory condition. They played games with her and invented fun songs to help her remember important rules about the ocean. For reasons revealed later on, Dory became separated from her family, and though she spent her formative years searching for them, eventually she forgot all about them. Her attempts were fully abandoned when she bumped into Marlin and decided to aid him in his search for his son Nemo. It’s a masterfully crafted introduction, exhibiting all the best storytelling traits that have become synonymous with the Pixar brand.

A year after Nemo was found (spoiler alert), we find Dory living ‘happily ever after’ with both him and Marlin. All is well until her memory is jogged and she starts having flashbacks to her time as a child. She remembers her a family and realizes that, more than anything, she wants to be reunited with them. With the aid of Marlin and Nemo, Dory embarks on an epic quest across the ocean to be reunited with her parents, facing many a trial and tribulation and making plenty of new friends along the way.

If this sounds familiar, that’s probably because it is. Finding Dory follows a similar story structure to that of its predecessor, and never shakes the feeling of treading familiar waters. (Boo-yah! Another one. I am the master) Additionally, its 2nd act is made up of a lot of repetitive incidental happenings –  Dory encounters an obstacle, meets a new friend, finds a solution, and the cycle starts all over again. It’s still plenty of fun, but it’s unquestionably the least involving section of the film, and the story never finds a way to satisfactorily involve Marlin and Nemo or make their subplot in which they try to keep up with Dory more engaging.

But, impressively, the screenplay, co-written by Stanton and Victoria Strouse, does a great job fitting in references to Finding Nemo in an organic way without feeling too bogged down by them. Additionally, a colorful cast of new characters help keep things from getting too stale during this section. There’s a near-sighted whale shark (Kaitlin Olson), a lovable, grumpy octopus (played by the lovable, grumpy Ed O’Neill), and, perhaps my personal favorites, two sea lions who laze about on their rock all day (Idris Elba and Dominic West).

And, of course, we have returning cast members Ellen DeGeneres and Albert Brooks as Dory and Marlin respectively. Brooks still provides Marlin with that charming, panic-first mentality; the character is relatively unchanged from the previous film. It’s DeGeneres who really gets a chance to shine here, as Dory takes the leap from supporting character to fully-formed lead. DeGeneres, who is always a delight, takes full advantage of the opportunity provided here. She instills Dory with all the charm we’ve come to expect, but now there's a level of emotional resonance which makes it far easier to empathize with the character. It's some of DeGeneres's best work.

At the end of the day, it’s the underlying themes that make Finding Dory truly effective. Stanton keeps the heart of the tail (like a fish tail! Sorry, that one was a bit of a stretch…) firmly at the forefront, while still managing to keep things light and fun. Despite its meandering middle section, Finding Dory is a worthy entry in the Pixar catalogue and a fine sequel to a classic animated film. If you have any level of affection for the original, you won’t want to miss this.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

The Lobster - Film Review

It’s been nearly a week since I saw The Lobster, and to be completely honest I’m still not sure how I feel about it.

On the one hand, it is masterfully made. Writer/director Yorgos Lanthimos has a keen visual sense and directs his screenplay, co-written by Efthymis Filippou, with understated confidence. It’s also very funny with consistent laugh-out-loud moments and thoughtful insights on dating and love.

On the other hand, it is a deeply unsettling viewing experience. Its comedy is pitch black, which some may find off-putting, and understandably so. There were moments where I wasn’t sure whether I wanted to laugh or cry. Or both. There were also moments when I could hardly bear to look at the screen.

But in the days since my viewing, The Lobster has stayed with me. It has an undeniable power, and that alone deserves merit. Film fans owe it to themselves to see this remarkable piece of work. General audiences might want to brace themselves for a challenging experience, or just steer clear in general.

In a not-too-distant future with a consistently overcast sky, being single is outlawed. Those without a significant other are taken to a Hotel, where they are instructed to find a mate within 45-days. If their attempts are unsuccessful, they will be turned into an animal of their choosing and sent off to live in the wild.

After his wife left him for another man, David (Colin Farrell) checks into the Hotel with his brother, who failed to find a mate and was turned into a dog. If he fails to find a partner, he desires to be turned into a lobster. When the Hotel manager (the wonderful Olivia Colman) asks him why, he explains they have long life-spans and remain fertile throughout their lives. “I also like the sea very much.”

Farrell is superb here, delivering a performance both subtle and sympathetic, despite his persistent dead-eyed expression. Even when we’re not quite sure what’s going on (the screenplay does an excellent job of withholding information until exactly the right moment), Farrell keeps us involved and invested. The supporting cast, featuring the likes of Ben Whisaw, John C. Reilly, Rachel Weisz and Léa Seydoux, is equally effective.

I won’t spoil specifics, but about halfway through its runtime The Lobster switches gears, abandoning the story of its first half for something new and almost entirely unrelated. It’s not wholly successful in this sudden switch; many ideas set up in the beginning are abandoned for new ones. And while the film’s 2nd half kept me involved despite the introduction of a brand new story and characters, the whole thing can’t help feeling somewhat disjointed. Though I applaud Lanthimos resistance to answering every question presented, allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions, I felt the film might have benefitted from a bit more insight into this world and the reasoning behind turning people into animals.

Another thing I had difficulty with was that The Lobster seems to be an attempt to comment on the concept of relationships, but it’s never clear what it’s trying to say. Are we over-reliant on them? Are we taking them for granted? Is love a positive thing or is it only a byproduct of humanity’s need to procreate? Lanthimos presents plenty of intriguing thoughts, but never fleshes them out in a fully satisfying way.

Perhaps The Lobster merits repeat viewings to unlock all its secrets, but it can’t help feeling slightly pretentious in its purposeful efforts to be bizarre and elusive. Chances are you will either love it or hate it. Despite this, it is an utterly fascinating viewing experience, one which I wholeheartedly recommend to anyone who appreciates cinema as an artform.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5 

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