REVIEW: X-Men: Apocalypse

Have you ever gone out and purchased just one heck of a marvellous cheese?  I'm not talking just about your generic cheddar, but let's say it's aged ten years.  Or even, and one of my favourites, jalapeño havarti.  Now it's a blessing to have such a wonderful treat, but what you have on your hands can be instantly ruined and rendered moot.  If you slice it up and put it on the cheapest hotdog you can find, accompanied by a stale bun, you may have just as well used something else.  What you have done is wasted that cheese.

I understand that it is not the greatest analogy, especially for those who don't roll the dairy, but that is how I felt when it came to the main villain in X-Men: Apocalypse.  What the film makers did was take Oscar Isaac, who is one of the best acting talents of today, and put him in a roll that could have easily been filled by anyone.  There was nothing about Apocalypse that allowed for any subtle nuances from Isaac, who was destined to just deliver monotone lines and show limited facial expressions.

Does that mean the movie as a whole is bad?  Not at all.  What it does mean is that the main source of tension in the film drags and adds little energy, which does affect the film as a whole.

As the movie begins, we find director Bryan Singer hurling visuals at us, almost as though the movie is setting a tone that it is going to flex its CGIed muscles throughout.  It felt a little overkill and distracting, especially when it went into a Monster Energy Drink lead-in to the opening title.  There was worry, I am not going to lie about that.  I asked, 'what have I gotten myself into?'  Luck would have it that the computer generated pace of the opening sequence was disingenuous to the tone of the rest of the movie and things died down until the third act when it turned once again into visual effect soup.

They looked pretty enough, but they were massively abundant and took away a lot of the intimacy that the story deserved.  The cast of characters involved was deep, and the talent selected to play each part was well thought out.  Each of the X-Men felt like there was some attention paid to them to create heroes that we could root for.  The same could not be said about the mutants that were enlisted by Apocalypse to help him.  For whatever reason, the man needed help.  Even though he was near all powerful.  His character and the reasoning for his actions were most certainly underwritten, once again making me ask why Llewyn Davis (or, to use an example that may be better known, Poe Dameron) himself was cast for the role.

It was the quieter moments of the film where I felt the true story was being told.  There were enough of them to make me happy, and I enjoyed the inclusion and story of Cyclops (Tye Sheridan) and Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee).  Both are incredible young talents who brought depth to their characters enough to stand properly alongside other brilliant cast members, such as James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Jennifer Lawrence.

Possibly the most underplayed aspect is the time period.  It is set in the 1980s, and we are more shown that, rather than truly feeling it.  The previous movies focused greatly on playing into the emotions and feelings of their times, giving the viewer a rich environment in which to watch the story roll out.

Ultimately, there are enough decent aspects of the film to bring even keel the downside of a villain that lacks charisma and understanding.  It is not the strongest of the new X-Men movies, but it does hold a character of its own.  During a summer that is filled to the brim of special effects spectacles, it is X-Men: Apocalypse's shortcomings that will keep it from being too memorable.

Rating - 2.5 out of 4 stars

Should I Trust Rotten Tomatoes?

This is a question that a lot of people do not ask, at least the folks that I have come in contact with.  For some, the aggregate score of a film is enough to dictate whether or not to watch a movie.  With others, they don't pay attention at all or are unaware of the service.  I sit here thinking about it as I am about to see X-Men: Apocalypse tonight and the current rating for the film is sitting at forty nine percent.

For those who don't know, the website rottentomatoes.com posts a percentage of how many critical reviews were in favour of a film.  This can be a helpful tool for people who want to save their hard earned (or lazily earned, I'm not going to rule that out) dollars on something worthwhile.  Seeing that a movie was a hit with a large percentage of critics could be enough to make the decision to spend the bucks on a theatre ticket.

However, it is incredibly subjective.  The percentage is only on a scale of whether or not a film was recommended, not how good it is.  As someone who doles out film ratings on a weekly podcast, my magic rating for something being 'recommended' is three out of four stars.  However, there have been plenty of movies that get the dreaded two and a half stars, thus falling short of the glorious recommendation, that will still hit a target with a great number of people and I found fun to watch.

What am I saying?  Essentially, I am saying that a simple yes or no on a movie doesn't really mean squat.  What helps is following certain critics and seeing over the long haul if you have a similar view to movies as her or him.  That means when they like something, you have a good chance of liking it as well.

The notion that a site like Rotten Tomatoes is the end all of quality rankings is something that we should not fall into.  There have been a number of low rated movies that I like (it doesn't happen all the time, but it does happen), and there are also numerous times when something that is rated highly bores me to sleep.  Gathering anecdotal evidence from friends and the random passerby (I say random because someone with anxiety issues like me tends not to stop and hold cinematic court with people I don't know), this is the case with many people.

Once again, what am I saying?  That while there is some value to be gleaned from sights like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, they shouldn't be the one stop shop for deciding whether or not something is worth seeing.  Taking the time to actually read reviews goes a long way, as something that is a sticking point for a critic may not be one for you and you can feel comfort knowing that you will see the movie differently.

For me, the excitement that I have for X-Men: Apocalypse has not wained.  It is not reviewing well, but this has been a solid franchise since Matthew Vaughn reset the story with X-Men: First Class.  There is a deep well in my soul that warns me that I will not like it because of the rating it has on Rotten Tomatoes, but I am keeping that bastard tempered.  The best thing I can do is remain positive that I will like it, and then go and let the film speak for itself.  A lot of times, that is the best that anyone can do.

Disclaimer - the thoughts and opinions on Rotten Tomatoes do not apply to Bucky Larson: Born to be a Star.  That movie is horrific.  Full Stop.