X-Men: Apocalypse

I didn't expect that. So many good moments and actors drowned in such a bland story... And also directed by Bryan Singer. If only he'd made a standalone movie with the (totally awesome) Weapon X instead of this hastily cobbled together sequel that shouldn't even be compared to the first two or Days of Future Past..... Oh dear. The villain sucks, the plot has almost no overlap and the relationships between the characters are hardly interesting (yet that's what I've always enjoyed most about X-Men) and the whole thing is mostly a parade of gimmicks interspersed with something worth mentioning here and there. I was downright bored by the multi-destructive ending, and I'm actually disappointed to the point of being angry at how they managed to dilute the already diluted X-Men cinematic universe even more. (19/05/2016)

Seduced by visions of billion-dollar sales, the people at Fox applied a Marvel-esque concept, and the result is a director's genocide of his own children. It consists of rejuvenating detailed heroes with interchangeable faces and letting them fly thoughtlessly among digital backdrops. Yet Singer forgets about his main asset - strong characters - meaning that there is a complete lack of attachments, motivations, and, heaven forbid, tension. The viewer is thus left with a producer film that perfectly hits its target audience for a hundred and fifty minutes (it's not boring for even a second), but one that also sells its own soul (key moments are alternated from the past) and leaves the broken hearts of fans of what has laboriously redefined the comic book genre for sixteen years to die in agony. (18/05/2016)

A film without charisma. It doesn't bore or annoy, but everything that takes place in it is, in keeping with the more intimate psychological feel of its predecessors, simply a screw-up. Nobody expected such a big story cliché and an absolute inclination towards the digitally overstuffed Snyder manuscript from Singer, and the exhausted plot extensions in the form of introducing "new" recruits are not only detrimental to the dubiously tuned script, which completely lacks any attempt at emotionality or creating strong bonds between the characters, but also to the stars themselves, who don't get much space and, more importantly, don't get much to play with – yes, even Fassbender, whose performance is traditionally precise, of course, but the ambivalence of his character, until recently the main driving force of the saga, also feels like a thematic encore with a minimum shelf-life date of Future Past. And I'm afraid the whole series has been given the same label. It's nice to look at, the music is great, Jennifer Lawrence gets prettier with each film, and there's a pleasing room for humour represented once again by the delectable Quiksilver, but these just aren't the X-Men we like. (20/05/2016)

I have a soft spot for the X-Men, after all, they showed how to confidently make comic book adaptations, managing to make them smart and ambitious, stripping them of the label of children's entertainment. They've always been smarter, had better fleshed out characters, and didn’t care about black and white. That is, until recently, because X-Men: Apocalypse is a step backwards in everything I listed above. And a hell of a big one. The sixth X-Men movie feels like something that was made in the late 90s, a time when it wasn't the norm to have characters dealing with a crisis of faith (like Nightcrawler in X-Men 2), drawing on the political situation of the 70s (Days of Future Past), or wondering if mutation was a disease or evolution (more or less the entire original trilogy). Now we have a blue idiot who wants to destroy the world for his ego, and that's it. Bryan Singer and his team seem to have ditched what has always been their strength and made a generic blockbuster for a lot of money. Unfortunately, the director's action sequences never work as well as the character work, he doesn't quite master the digital effects either, and he's got a bunch of characters that are either underused or completely unnecessary. In the end, it turned out to be a mediocre quarter-billion dollar movie. Personally, I'm used to more from this franchise. A lot more. (15/05/2017)

Let's face it: this movie isn't very good, but then again, I wasn't bored. Granted it had scenes where I'm not sitting in the cinema but at the PC, so I'm stomping them because their bullshit was unlistenable; on the other hand, it had a scene I'd like to see again, which of course is the one with the great music and the "express train". There's not much to say about the acting, the actors didn't really stand out, the story was kind of rubbish, but the music managed to draw you in. It's a heavy middling film that surprisingly didn't bore me too much; I only had to roll my eyes about three times. :-D Get over how illogical it was that a bunch of Polish workers could speak English (since we're on location and speaking a foreign language, let's play it to the hilt!), or that one randomly shot ordinary arrow (which wouldn't have a metal tip!) kills two birds with one stone, and it's a nice movie for an evening when you come home from work and just want to be entertained. 55%. (19/05/2016)