X-Men Apocalypse thread

>X-Men Apocalypse thread

>why was it so reviled by the media? I agree it had pacing issues with the action and was a little long, but it certainly doesn't deserve a 47% on rotten tomatoes.

Who are you quoting?

For one, I forget most of what happens outside the Quicksilver scene. For another, there really wasn't any connections to make to any characters. Thirdly, why have such a big detour for Wolverine when it added absolutely nothing to the plot?

It's the Quantum of Solace of X-Men films. It's not entirely bad, but you forget you ever saw it.

The script is a complete mess start to finish.

I'm sorry but this was boring as shit. On top of that, it wanted to be like two or three different movies at once while setting up later shit like Wolverine, Phoenix and the next generation

I think really more than anything I was disappointed in how they handled the Horsemen. My god, only Magneto did anything of note and that's because he's Magneto. Storm was a mook, Angel was a joke and don't even get me started on Psylocke

>Magneto kills millions of people and causes billions in property damage
>Xavier brushes it off like it's nothing at the end
That's the one thing I truly can't forgive.

>why have such a big detour for Wolverine when it added absolutely nothing to the plot?

To set up the next X-men movie and the third Wolverine movie.

>Quantum of Solace
Still less forgettable than Spectre.

Marveldrones, interns, and shills trying to bury the movie because it's not Marvel Studios.

Same thing happened this year with BVS and Suicide Squad.

>Snyderposter pretends BvS wasn't trash again

Reminder that 47% isn't a vote on quality

Olyvia Munn.

That was pretty much it

It wasn't though. At worst it was mediocre

So how come Warner and Fox don't try and do the same to the MCU movies?

I actually thought Munn did a decent job, especially the scene where she cut the car in half. She wasn't offensive I'm the role, although she had a bit of a slut gut.

Oops, meant to reply to the post about Psylocke

Fox should just give the rights back to Marvel. It would be the MORALLY right thing to do.

Plus Marvel woud finally make a GOOD X-Men movie and we would have the X-Men in the MCU.

It completely deserves that 47%.

>MORALLY right thing to do
why are you using morals with this kind of business

As a pole I understood the polish scenes and these were absolutely terrible in every possible way. The accent on all characters was off the acting was off everyone here just couldn't stop laughing in cinema. Overall movie was mediocre villain was readapting himself all the time some of the plot was stupid(Angel as one of the strongest mutants...). Didn't like jean casting, rest was ok. The riders generally were shit(plot wise).

>It completely deserves that 47%.

true, major let down after good DOFP

for some reason the car splitting shot looked odd to me, I can't put my finger on why though

Apoc's biggest problem was the costume and make-up department.
Then, most of the actors seemed liked they entirely phoned it in. Fazzy and Isaac were the only ones that consistently delivered.

Also, the Horsemen were underpowered and Apocalypse's motivations took a backseat to whatever else was going on.
>hey there's a Phoenix user here
>let's unlock that shit and do my ayylmao given duty
It was there, but not obvious at all. It made Apocalypse less threatening.

Is a whole lot better than Apoc though.

Probably because it was an awkward slo-mo scene after the previous very fast paced fight

>doesn't deserve a 47%

I adored Xmen Apocalypse

Its the sort classic bad cbm that gave me a real nostalgia boner

Hammy acting from older stars
Shitty acting from younger stars
Tone deaf dramatic beats
Terribad cgi
Horrible action choreography
Completely undercooked plot
Green screen up the ass
And finally the lame costumes

Its a modern museum piece

They do. You can't keep falling back on this. It's just a shit system in [CURRENT YEAR].
If it's got a 47% that means 53% of critics think it's worse than a 6/10, but the aggregate of audiences pings it at 7/10. Basically, the critics are out of touch with the audiences because they are desperately trying to cling to "relevancy" in a connected age where word of mouth has vastly more impact than they ever will again.
RT just has a bad system. The critic aggregate (on the RT site) is actually 5.7/10. 47% *Rotten* does a disservice to the critics and it becomes the equivalent of clickbait.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that the audience truly does know best, just that the critics are out of touch.

Hell, I agree that the movie is no better than 6/10 so take that how you will. Fwiw, I prefer Metacritc (format and greater exclusivity of reviewers), and its aggregate is harsher at 52/100.

Not enough money. They can only afford people who can post on message boards.

You know, it's funny how much promotion they gave Psylocke for a character who had such a bit part.

It's the Wolverine's Claws Dilemma, coupled with the usual dreadful FOX cgi.

Wolverine's claws can cut through anything. We all know that. So you'll regularly see Wolverine cut up Sentinels, doors, people, you know, whatever. Except depending on the depiction his claws might only be as long as his outstretched hands, or maybe as long as his forearms from his elbow to his wrist. So sharp as they are, you'll see (in good depictions) that he has to work his way around something large to cut it up. Otherwise, it has to be drawn smaller than it really is (there's some of that going on with Psylocke in the scene you're talking about) or his blade has to be drawn longer than it is (some of that in the scene too, though it's a weird-purple-crap blade so... looks stupid, but "understandable") or he has to go full animu and slice through things far beyond the actual reach of his blade (which, guess what, is also happening in that scene).

Also, because of the angle they chose, she basically does it all off camera (this may be deliberate for the reasons above) and you then see her moving forward fast while the car moves away. They do seem to be largely in scale with one another, but the transition is so fast and the angle is so weird it's hard to differentiate what's where when, so for a split second the car looks like it's tiny.

It's not a good moment.

>they are desperately trying to cling to "relevancy" in a connected age where word of mouth has vastly more impact than they ever will again.

Literally even the shittiest website reviewer aggregated there gets 300k unique visitors each and every month for years at a time before RT will aggregate them. It's not that the critics are out of touch, it's that you're out of touch with those huge audiences that the critics speak to. It's doesn't mean that either party is wrong, because in the end it's subjective opinion no matter how you cut it.

Still don't hear this kind of crying for Fantfourstic.

>Still don't hear this kind of crying for Fantfourstic.

I think that was just because of all the crazy shit that went down last year.

QoS was a great script fucked over by being unfinished because of the writers strike and coming out at the height of Bourne mania meaning nausea inducing editing.

But at its core it was a proper successor to Casino Royale and probably still the second best Bond for the simple reason that at least it was trying to be a real movie which only three or four Bond movies have ever done.

Apocalypse was the definition of a unnecessary cash grab. That shit was forced and bland from cradle to grave.

>it's that you're out of touch with those huge audiences that the critics speak to
Explain then why the audience aggregate is higher.

>Still don't hear this kind of crying for Fantfourstic.
Nobody saw it.

>second best Bond
Of the Craig movies?
Sure, but top three (no particular order) would be FRWL, Casino Royale, and probably OHMSS (though I'd personally put License to Kill above because Dalton was a better Bond than Laz).

I'd rank QoS pretty high up there though. Easily in the "good" half of Bond movies.
>dat Opera scene

Slut gut?

>Explain then why the audience aggregate is higher.
Because the types of people who would go out of their way to vote on a movie are generally people that either REALLY enjoyed it or REALLY hated it, and most people don't go to see a movie unless they're reasonably sure they'll enjoy it. On the other hand, critics go to see movies as part of their job and review it regardless of their feelings on it.

Audience scores on aggregate sites are generally pretty fucking worthless. Just go to any metacritic page and see how many user reviews are either a 10 or a 1.