"DARK PHOENIX" (2019) Review

"DARK PHOENIX" (2019) Review

I feel sorry for the old X-MEN Movie Universe. Well . . . almost. For a franchise that began on a high note, it certainly ended with a whimper. At least from a financial point-of-view. And that whimper proved to be the 2019 movie, "DARK PHOENIX".

Actually, "DARK PHOENIX" is not the final film of this franchise. The last film is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2020. As for "DARK PHOENIX", it is the twelfth film associated with the franchise that was associated with the old 20th Century Fox Studios. It is also the second movie in the franchise, after 2005's "X-MEN: THE LAST STAND", to adapt Marvel Comics' 1976-1980 comic book series of the same title.

The movie begins in 1975 when nine year-old Jean Grey and her parents get involved in a car accident that leaves her as the sole survivor. Jean's situation eventually attracts the attention of Professor Charles Xavier, who enrolls her as one of his students at the Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters. The story jumps to 1992, nine years after the events of "X-MEN: APOCALYPSE". Some of Xavier's former students have become the next generation of the X-Men, with Mystique aka Raven as the team's leader in the field and the Professor receiving their glory from the public and media. The U.S. President summons the team to assist NASA into rescuing the space shuttle Endeavour, which is critically damaged by a solar flare-like energy during its mission. While the X-Men save all of the astronauts, Jean is stranded and is struck by the energy, which she absorbs into her body to save the X-Men's aircraft from destruction. Jean survives the event and her psychic powers are greatly amplified by the energy. Her powers become uncontrollable and she later accidentally unleashes her power on the mutants celebrating the success of their mission at Xavier's school. Even worse, Jean's enhanced powers attract the attention of a group of alien shape shifters called the D'Bari, whose home planet had been destroyed by the energy force. They want to use the energy (or Jean) to wipe out Earth's inhabitants and re-shape the planet to resemble their own.

Eventually, Jean and the other X-Men learn that Xavier had placed mental walls in Jean's mind as a little girl to protect her psychic mind from experiencing trauma from her childhood accident. Jean's enhanced power destroys the mental walls and the trauma slowly returns, filling her with desire, rage, and pain. Jean then travels to her childhood hometown after finding out that her father is still alive and learned that he abandoned her. Jean recovers her complete memory of the car accident and remembers that her post-traumatic stress disorder had originated with the childhood car accident in which she had inadvertently caused by rendering her mother unconscious at the wheel with her telepathy. When the X-Men arrive to take Jean home but she injures Peter Maximoff aka Quicksilver and accidentally kills Raven aka Mystique before disappearing. And her actions led to the U.S. Army searching for her and willing to imprison other mutants at the government's order.

Many X-Men fans and critics had really dumped on this movie when it first hit the theaters. I am not going to examine why this film was so unpopular. I can only discuss how I felt about it. One, it was not an original film. In many ways, "DARK PHOENIX" almost struck me as a remake of the 2006 movie, "THE X-MEN: THE LAST STAND". Or perhaps I should say . . . a remake of the Dark Phoenix story arc, but with slightly different details. I suspect that Kinsberg and the X-Men producers wanted to use the changed timeline from "X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST" as an excuse to re-write the Dark Phoenix story arc from 2006. Personally, I feel it would have been more original of them to completely leave that story arc alone and utilize another narrative for the film.

I also found the enhancement of Jean's powers via some alien energy wave not only unoriginal, but unnecessary. Why did Simon Kinberg even thought it was necessary to enhance Jean's powers? She had displayed an uber level of power when she killed En Sabah Nur aka Apocalypse in "X-MEN: APOCALYPSE". I can only assume the solar flare energy situation was created by Kinsberg to introduce the D'Bari. Speaking of the latter, I noticed that their goal to destroy humanity and settle on Earth as its new home bore a strong resemblance to General Zod's plan in 2013's "MAN OF STEEL". Look, I do not mind that Kinsberg had used aliens as the movie's Big Bad for this film. But did he have to recycle a plot from a D.C. Comics movie? Or worse, create this energetic force to enhance Jean Grey's powers, when they really did not require to be enhanced in the first place?

I have one last problem - namely the casting of certain actors in this film. "DARK PHOENIX" is set in 1992, thirty years after the setting of "X-MEN: FIRST-CLASS" and nearly fifty years after Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr's World War II experiences. This means both characters should be roughly 60 years old or in their early sixties by now. The Hank McCoy character should be at least in his mid-to-late fifties in this movie. And yet . . . all three characters are portrayed by younger actors. The ages of both James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender ranged from late thirties to early forties around the time of the film's production. Nicholas Hoult, who portrayed Hank, was roughly in his late twenties. If the movie's producers were not willing to hire age appropriate actors for the characters of Xavier, Magneto and McCoy; they could have at least arrange the actors to wear makeup that would reflect their characters' ages. This is just plain sloppiness on so many levels.

Despite the film's lack of originality, I must admit that I actually managed to enjoy "DARK PHOENIX". I noticed that Kinsberg's screenplay featured a more in-depth exploration of how Jean's enhanced powers had made an impact on her life and on those in her life. I also enjoyed how the actions of certain characters in regard to Jean had resulted in major consequences for many characters. I found it interesting how Jean found herself isolated by her fellow mutants and a lot of the blame could be tossed at Charles Xavier's feet. He did not use his telepathy to contain her power - especially since he had encouraged her to use it to defeat En Sabah Nur in the 2016 film. Instead, he had used his telepathy to suppress her memories of her parents' death and her emotional reaction to it . . . instead of simply helping her deal with a tragic loss. Xavier had used a short cut. And when the alien energy removed his mental blocks on Jean's mind, tragic consequences followed. Xavier did not pay the consequences of his actions with death, but he did pay a heavy price.

Ironically, Erik Lensherr aka Magneto had no interest in exploiting Jean's new powers, as he had done in the 2006 movie. He was more concerned in protecting Genosha, the refugee island for mutants he had founded and demanded that she leave after the U.S. Army appeared. Unfortunately, Magneto's desire to protect those mutants under his leadership transformed into vengeance when he learned about Mystique's death from a grieving Hank McCoy aka Beast. I found it interesting that Hank had never bothered to inform Erik that Mystique's death had been an accident on Jean's part. He was angry at Charles for the latter's handling of Jean and decided to use the latter as a moral scapegoat. And unfortunately, the vengeful actions of both men ended up exacerbating an already dangerous situation. By the time the movie shifted to Manhattan, three forces (including the U.S. Army) were trying to contain, exploit or destroy Jean. Only a fourth group seemed concerned with Jean - namely the X-Men. And for once, Xavier WAS NOT the catalyst for the team's attempt to rescue Jean. Her fellow team members - led by Scott Summers aka Cyclops and Ororo Munroe aka Storm - led this endeavor.

If I must be honest, most of the film's visual effects did not blow my mind. At best, I found them serviceable. I could also say the same about Mauro Fiore's cinematography. However, there was one particular sequence in which the film's visuals and Fiore's photography really blew my mind. It involved the major clash that eventually evolved between the X-Men, the mutants under Erik Lensherr and Hank McCoy, the U.S. Army and the D'Bari. I have become increasingly weary of final action sequences shot at night over the past decade, thanks to the second "LORD OF THE RINGS" movie. I must say that I was more impressed by Fiore and the visual team's work in this particular sequence, which began on the streets of Manhattan and ended on a train headed out of the city. And their work was more than ably supported by excellent editing from Lee Smith.

I certainly had no problems with the performances featured in "DARK PHOENIX". The movie featured solid performances from the likes of Evan Peters, Kodi Smit Mc-Phee, Ato Essandoh and Brian D'Arcy James. Another solid performance came from Michael Fassbender, whose portrayal of Erik Lensherr struck me as skillful, but not particularly memorable. I do not think Kinsberg's screenplay gave the actor something new or unusual to work with. At first, it seemed as if Alexandra Shipp was doomed to endure another movie in which her character, Ororo Munroe aka Storm, nearly became a background character. Thankfully, the movie's second half gave Shipp an opportunity to convey Storm's resilient nature with more dialogue and action scenes. I especially enjoyed that moment when Storm and Cyclops made it clear to Xavier their determination to help Jean.

Vuk proved to be the second time I have ever seen Jessica Chastain portray a villain. And I thought she gave an interesting and slightly . . . bizarre performance as the D'Bari's manipulative leader, who seemed focused on seducing Jean for the latter's powers. Nicholas Hoult surprised me by his skillful portrayal of the uglier side of Hank McCoy's nature. This was especially apparent in scenes that reflected McCoy's desire to avenge Mystique's death. Speaking of the latter, Jennifer Lawrence's appearance barely spanned half of the movie. I thought she gave a solid performance. But there was one scene in which she truly impressed me. It featured Mystique's sardonic rant against Xavier for using the X-Men as his personal publicity campaign. I was more impressed by Tye Sheridan's portrayal of Scott Summers aka Cyclops in this film than I was in the 2016 movie. Sheridan's Cyclops became a more mature and determined personality. That maturity was expressed in Scott's continuing love for Jean and his determination to help her as much as possible.

I think "DARK PHOENIX" marked the first time I can truly recall Charles Xavier being portrayed in a negative light . . . and I enjoyed it. This has nothing to do with any dislike of Xavier. But I cannot deny that I found James McAvoy's portrayal of his character very interesting . . . and new. What I really found interesting is that Xavier's uglier side was not briefly manifested in the revelation of the telepathic blocks he had placed in Jean's head. That revelation only deepened Xavier's arrogance and blindness. But audiences first saw signs of these traits, thanks to his argument with Mystique over his exploitation of the X-Men team for personal glory. Some of the franchise's fans felt that Sophie Turner was not up to portraying the "Dark Phoenix" aspect of Jean Grey's character. I suppose they were expecting a re-play of Famke Janssen's portrayal. Even if they were not, I still managed to enjoy Turner's performance. The main reason why I did was because Turner did not try to repeat the older actress' performance. Thanks to Kinsberg's script, Turner was able to put a different spin of Jean's evolution into the Dark Phoenix . . . one that did not paint her as villainous. I also felt that Turner did an excellent job of conveying how Xavier's mental blocks had led Jean to experience post traumatic stress (PST) and loss of control of her powers.

I cannot explain why "DARK PHOENIX" proved to be a box office failure. And if I must be honest, I am not interested in expressing my opinion on this topic. The movie was not perfect. And frankly, I wonder if it was a good idea to use the shifted timeline from "X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST" as an excuse to create a new version of the Dark Phoenix story arc. But I cannot deny that I enjoyed the movie. I thought Kinsberg had created a solid piece of cinematic entertainment with a screenplay that did not become a convoluted mess and first-rate performances from a cast led by James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Sophie Turner.

"DARK PHOENIX" (2019) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "DARK PHOENIX", the 2019 adaptation of Marvel Comics' 1980 comic book saga, "The Dark Phoenix Saga". Written and directed by Simon Kinsberg, the movie starred James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Sophie Turner:



"DARK PHOENIX" (2019) Photo Gallery

"THE FAVOURITE" (2018) Review

"THE FAVOURITE" (2018) Review

From the moment I first saw the trailer for Yorgos Lanthimos' 2018 Oscar nominated comedy-drama, "THE FAVOURITE", I wanted to see it. Badly. Being something of a penny pincher, I had figured I would not get a chance to see the film until its release on DVD, cable television or streaming television. But my sister, who also wanted to see the film, finally convinced me to spend a few extra dollars to see the film while it was still in limited release. 

What was the reason behind my fervent desire to see "THE FAVOURITE"? One, it was a period film . . . and I am a sucker for the genre. Two, the movie was set during the reign of Queen Anne of Great Britain, a period I have not personally seen on screen since my viewing of the 1969 miniseries, "THE FIRST CHURCHILLS". And three, judging from the trailer, the movie struck me as funny, witty and very original. I love originality.

"THE FAVOURITE" is basically Lanthimos' take on the political rivalry between two of Queen Anne's courtiers and cousins - Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough and Abigail Masham, Baroness Masham - for her favor. The movie begins with then Abigail Hill's arrival at Kensington Palace to serve as a scullery maid (?). Abigail, whose father had lost his fortune during a game of whist, owes her job to her cousin, Sarah Churchill. The latter is the Queen's premiere courtier and has an emotional hold over the monarch, due to their sexual affair. However, Sarah's powerful standing in Court begins to decline when Abigail manages to win the Queen's favor after using her to help relieve the latter's pain from the gout. Abigail and the Queen eventually begins an affair and former's standing in Court not only increases, but also threatens Sarah's.

Lanthimos' movie had a lot going for it. Thanks to his screenplay, "THE FAVOURITE" featured political intrigue . . . well, somewhat; and three lead characters and a supporting character that proved to be fascinating. Queen Anne's twelve-year reign proved to be volatile than I had ever surmised. To be honest, I have not given a thought about Anne's reign since watching "THE FIRST CHURCHILLS" a long time ago. The movie did occasionally focused on the conflicts between the Tory and Whig parties. Abigail Masham, like Queen Anne and Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford, favored the Tory party and Sarah Churchill favored the Whigs. The latter party supported Britain's participation in the War of the Spanish Succession aka Queen Anne's War, and the Churchills had benefited from John Churchill's command of British troops during it. Due to Sarah's emotional control over the Queen, the Whigs under Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin maintained control over Parliament. However, that changed after Abigail's arrival at Kensington Palace due to Lord Oxford's insistence that she spy on the Queen's relationship with Sarah and later, her growing favor with the monarch.

The movie touched upon all . . . or, most of the political aspects surrounding Queen Anne's Court. However Yorgos Lanthimos, along with screenwriters Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara, had decided to focus upon the emotional and sexual triangle that had formed between Anne, Sarah and Abigail. Watching this triangle unfurl was like being sucked into some emotional vortex - fascinating and at the same time, dangerous and volatile. Davis, McNamara and especially Lanthimos provided moviegoers with a period biopic that certainly skewered from the usual output from both the Hollywood industry and the film industry overseas. Both the best and the worst aspects of all three women and some of the supporting characters seemed to be on display. Some critics have claimed that "THE FAVOURITE" is basically a satire on period dramas. I agree, but it also struck me as a cautionary tale about the acquirement, use and abuse of power. This cautionary tale especially seemed to encompass the Abigail Masham and Lord Oxford characters, as they use Queen Anne to overcome Sarah Churchill's control of the Court and the Whigs in Parliament. But this theme of abuse of power also touched upon Sarah Churchill and her attempts to maintain her control and the Queen herself, who becomes increasingly determined that she would be the one in control and no one else.

The production's visuals and designs proved to be first-rate. Robbie Ryan had received both an Academy Award nomination and a BAFTA nomination for the film's excellent photography. I thought his photography captured the beauty and color of the movie's English locations. Fiona Crombie and Alice Felton won a well-deserved BAFTA award and earned an Oscar nomination for the movie's production designs. Both Crombie Felton did a superb job in re-creating the look of Queen Anne's Court of the early 18th century. And what can I say about Sandy Powell's costume designs, which earned an Academy Award nomination and won a BAFTA? I thought she did an excellent job in re-creating . . . well, almost re-creating the fashions of early 18th century England as shown below:

 



Powell's designs are not completely historically accurate. Although she accurately shaped the costumes, Powell made them from Nigerian fabrics found in London. And the costumes' color schemes seemed to feature white, blue, gray and black. Very original, very beautiful, but not particularly accurate.

I certainly had no complaints about the cast. Most of the supporting cast for "THE FAVOURITE" - Joe Alwyn, James Smith, Edward Aczel, and Mark Gatiss - all gave solid performances. However, I must admit that there were times when Gatiss, who portrayed the Duke of Marlborough, barely seemed visible and obviously wasted in this film. However, there was one supporting performance that really impressed and entertained me. It came from Nicolas Hoult, who portrayed English statesman and occasional sadist, Robert Harley, the Earl of Oxford. Was the real Lord Oxford a sadist? I have no idea. But he did try to gain Abigail's assistance to gain favor with Queen Anne with no scruples. Hoult managed to capture his character's slightly sadistic, yet ambitious nature with such subtlety and skill that I found myself enjoying his performance more than any other in the film.

If I must be frank, the true backbone or backbones of "THE FAVOURITE" proved to be the three leading ladies - Olivia Colman, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz. As much as I enjoyed Hoult's performance, I realize that this movie would have been nothing without them. Many may wax lyrical over Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara's Oscar nominated screenplay, Sandy Powell's costumes or Yorgos Lanthimos' direction. But the performances of the three actresses made this movie and all three gave superb performances. Olivia Colman won just about every (or nearly every) acting award under the sun for her portrayal of Queen Anne of Great Britain. What I admire about her performance is that she gave emotional depth to a character that was in danger by the screenplay into devolving into a caricature of an idiot savant. I could probably say the same about Rachel Weisz's portrayal of Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. There were times when the Sarah Churchill character seemed in danger of drifting into some stereotype of the "butch" lesbian trope. If it were not for Weisz's excellent acting, for which she received an Oscar nomination and a BAFTA award for Best Supporting Actress, I would have lost all interest in the character. Emma Stone was lucky that her character Sarah Hill Masham, Baroness Masham never drifted toward the edge of caricature. In a way, she had it easier than Colman and Weisz. But I admire her performance for two reasons. One, she had to master some kind of upper-class English accent without overdoing it. And two, the actress did an excellent job of revealing Abigail's cold ambitions behind the warm and feminine facade, layer by layer.

And yet . . . despite my admiration for the cast's performances, the film's visual style and certain aspect of its narrative; I did not like "THE FAVOURITE". I did not hate it like some who did. But I did not like it. The movie seemed like a cinematic version of a drama queen. The cinematic epitome of pure titillation. When it comes to historical accuracy in films and television, I seemed to have mixed views. I can tolerate it, if it works for me. I tolerated Sandy Powell's historically incorrect costumes. I tolerated the fact that the Earl of Oxford character, as portrayed by Nicholas Hoult, was a good 15 years younger than the real Lord Oxford during the film's setting. And I tolerated the historically inaccurate characterizations of the film's three leading characters . . . only to a point in which I admired their performances. But the movie had crossed too many lines for my tastes.

Queen Anne kept rabbits as pets to symbolize the 17 children she had lost? Rabbits as pets? During the early 18th century? They were either regarded as food or pests over three centuries ago. What was the point of those rabbits in the first place? What did her lost children have to do with the movie's narrative, other than reveal Abigail as some uncaring monster? Was that it? What happened to Anne's consort, Prince George of Denmark? Her husband who was still alive when Abigail Masham née Hill first joined the Queen's Court? Why was he kept out of the movie, but not Sarah or Abigail's husbands? His death had proven to be one of the main reasons why the Queen and Sarah first became estranged in the first place. Anne had loved him very much and Sarah's dismissive attitude toward Prince George's death sparked the beginning of the two women's estrangement. Why did the film failed to mention that Abigail was also related to Lord Oxford, as well as Sarah Churchill? And why on earth was her first position at the Queen's Court as a scullery maid? A scullery maid? Seriously? Someone with her blood connections? Both Sarah and Lord Oxford would have found it socially embarrassing to have a cousin working as a scullery maid within the Queen's household. 

And of course, there were scenarios and scenes that left me scratching my head. One of the scenes I refer to is that ridiculous scenario in which Abigail had poisoned Sarah and had the latter dumped at some whorehouse outside of London. One, it was stupid plan that could have easily backfired. And two, what was the movie trying to say? That Abigail was familiar with places before her arrival at Court? And could someone please explain the reasoning behind the scene that featured a nude, giggling fat man being pelted by blood oranges by Lord Oxford and his cronies. What was the point of that scene? What exactly was Yorgos Lanthimos trying to say? Also, what was the point behind Samuel Masham's line dance performance (courtesy of actor Joe Alwyn) in the film? What was that about? Or was it another scene for shock value? Honestly, scenes like Sarah in a whorehouse, the pelted naked man and Masham's dance routine are just examples of the absolute, over-the-top nonsense that I had found in this film. 

But what really pissed me off about "THE FAVOURITE" were the changes that Lanthimos, Davis and McNamara made in regard to the history between Queen Anne, the Duchess of Marlborough and the Baroness Masham. What was the point in these changes? It seemed as if the director and the screenwriters had striped away a great deal of the historical conflict between the three women in order to convey a tale of a sexual triangle filled with ambition and passion. And nothing else. This struck me as unnecessary and frankly, a little insulting as a woman. It almost seemed as if the movie found it difficult to take the political beliefs and/or abilities of three women seriously, especially Queen Anne. The estrangement between the Queen and Sarah, along with Abigail's ascendancy was pretty interesting in real life. Aside from showing Sarah's political influence within the Court, the movie never really explored the political differences between the Queen and Sarah . . . or the fact that Abigail genuinely shared the former's Tory politics. Or that Queen Anne had not only grown weary of Sarah's bullying nature, but also resentful of the latter's Whig politics. Instead, moviegoers were presented with a tale mainly about sexual power, with very little politics involved.

In fact, there is no real proof that Queen Anne was ever in any sexual relationship with either Sarah or Anne. I dislike the fact that Davis and McNamara's screenplay solely blamed Abigail for the Queen and Sarah's estrangement. In reality, Sarah was the main instigator of her own political downfall. In fact, she was also the main reason behind her own downfall within King George II's Court, some twenty years later. I realize that Davis, McNamara and Lanthimos wanted an "Eve Harrington" figure and they saw Abigail Masham as the perfect figure for this. But if they had wanted a LGTBQ remake of "ALL ABOUT EVE" that badly, why not create original characters for this movie? Why use historical figures who were never proven to be gay in the first place? One more thing, it took me a while, but I finally realized that "THE FAVOURITE" reminded me of another movie. I am speaking of the 1989 comedy about a divorce called "THE WAR OF ROSES". Like "THE FAVOURITE", the 1989 movie started out as a movie filled with sharp humor and devolved into something ugly and lurid. And in the case of "THE FAVOURITE" . . . laced with exploitation. 

I hate to say this, but "THE FAVOURITE" proved to be a major disappointment for me. Perhaps this would teach me not to judge a film, based upon a trailer. When I first saw it, I had assumed that the film would be a satirical comedy with strong political overtones. Instead, I found myself watching a film in which the comedy became repetitive and not as funny as I had originally assumed . . . and a movie with the historical background changed drastically for the sake of shock value and sheer exploitation. Director Yorgos Lanthimos, along with screenwriters Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara, pretty much ruined this film for me. And not even the excellent performances of Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz or Emma Stone could save it, as far as I am concerned.

"THE FAVOURITE" (2018) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE FAVOURITE", the 2018 biopic about Queen Anne and two of her courtiers. Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, the movie starred Olvia Coleman, Emma Stone and Rachel Weisz: 



"THE FAVOURITE" (2018) Photo Gallery

"X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" (2016) Review

"X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" (2016) Review

Two years following the success of 2014's "X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST", Marvel Entertainment released a new "X-MEN" film set ten years after the previous one. The movie proved to be the fourth one directed by Bryan Singer. 

"X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" began in ancient Egypt, where the world's first mutant, a powerful individual named En Sabah Nur, ruled by by transferring his mind into new bodies. Unfortunately, a group of former worshipprs betrayed En Sabah Nur aka "Apocalypse" by entombing him alive. They also killed his four lieutenants, the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse", who tried to protect him. The movie jumped to 1983 Egypt where C.I.A. Agent Moira MacTaggert (last seen in 2011's "X-MEN: FIRST CLASS") has been investigating a cult in Egypt that worships En Sabah Nur. Her accidental exposure his tomb to sunlight awakened the ancient mutant and produced a shock wave around the globe. Following his awakening, En Sabah Nur set out to recruit four mutants as his new "Four Horsemen":

*Ororo Munroe aka "Storm" - an orphan and pickpocket from the streets of Cairo, who is able to control the weather

*Warren Worthington III aka "Angel" - a mutant with feathered wings on his back, who has resorted to participating in underground fight clubs in Berlin

*Psylocke - an enforcer for the black marketeer mutant Caliban, who is not only telepathic and telekinetic, but can also produce a purple-colored psychic energy

*Erik Lehnsherr aka "Magneto" - a Holocaust survivor and former friend of Charles Xavier, who has the ability to manipulate metal and control magnetic fields, and who is recently grieving over the accidental deaths of his wife and daughter by the Polish police

Apocalypse's shock wave also caused Jean Grey, an adolescent student and mutant at Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters to have a nightmare and momentarily lose control of her powers. When Charles Xavier attempted to investigate the power source he discovered that Moira was involved. Although her previous memories of them together were erased, Xavier meets with her to discuss the legend of En Sabah Nur. But when they become aware of the ancient mutant's plans to bring about the apocalypse; Xavier and Moira recruit fellow mutants like Raven aka "Mystique", Hank McCoy aka "Beast", Alex Summers aka "Havok", and Peter Maximoff aka "Quicksilver" to stop Apocalypse's plans. Xavier students like Jean Grey, Scott Summers aka "Cyclops" (Alex's nephew) and Kurt Wagner aka "Nightcrawler" also join the campaign to stop En Sabah Nur.

Let me be frank. "X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" was not well received by the critics and many filmgoers. I am not going to explain why they felt this way about the movie. Needless to say, I do not agree with this pervading view. I am not saying that "X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" was a great film. It was not. I believe the movie had some problems. 

One of those problems is that some of the cast members were obviously too young for their roles. This certainly seemed to be the case for James McAvoy Michael Fassbender and Rose Byrne, who portrayed Charles Xavier, Magneto and Moira McTaggart. All three are in their mid-to-late 30s and portrayed characters who were in their early 50s (late 40s for Moira, I suspect) . . . with no make-up to convey their characters' aging. Both Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult portrayed Mystique and Hank McCoy, who were slightly younger than Xavier and Magneto. But "X-MEN: FIRST CLASS" gave a good excuse for their slow aging . . . Mystique's blood. Another cast member who portrayed a character much older than himself (without makeup) is Lucas Till, who is at least 25 or 26 years old, reprising his role as the late 30s to early 40s Alex Summers. And finally, we have Josh Helman, who is barely 30 years old, who reprised his role as William Stryker, who must have been around the same age as Xavier and Magneto. Does Singer have something against aging in his "X-MEN"films? And if he wanted to maintain the same cast, could he have at least consider using aging makeup for at least five members of the cast?

Two, what was the point in including both Stryker and Wolverine in this movie? Why? They were not essential to the plot. Was it really necessary for Singer to convey that Stryker had ended up giving Wolverine adamantium after all? Despite the time change in "DAYS OF FUTURE PAST"? What was the point? Could we at least have one "X-MEN" film in which Hugh Jackman does not appear? I also see that Singer, along with screenwriter Simon Kinberg, decided to include Stryker in this tale as a plot device to delay Hank, Raven, Peter, and Moira from reaching Cairo. Pointless. It was the most pointless moment in this movie. Finally, I had a problem with the "Four Horsemen". Aside from Magneto, the other three were barely used. What was the point in showing how they were recruited by En Sabah Nur, when Oscar Isaac and Michael Fassbender seemed to be the only ones in scenes featuring the ancient mutant and his "Horsemen", who had the most lines. It is bad enough that once again, Singer indulged in his penchant for ignoring minority characters like Storm and Psylocke. Then he includes Angel into this movie - who was shown to be younger than Storm, Scott and Jean in 2006's "X-MEN: THE LAST STAND" - and barely give the latter any lines.

And yet . . . I still liked "X-MEN: APOCALYPSE". In fact, I liked it more than I did "X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST". The 2016 movie had its problems, but it never seemed racked with so many plot holes like the 2014 movie did. Without the cloud of time travel hovering over the movie, the writing for "APOCALPYSE" struck me as a little clearer and a lot more straightforward. I can applause Singer for attempting to tackle something complicated as time travel. I simply believe that he, Kinberg and the other screenwriters did not handle it very well. On the other hand, the more straightforward narrative for "X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" seemed to suit both Singer and Kinberg.

I did not care for the minor arc regarding William Stryker and Wolverine. And yes, En Sabah Nur's plot to retake the world seemed a bit unoriginal. But Singer and Kinberg handled this story a lot better than they did the time travel plot for the 2014 movie. And to be honest, I rather liked it. I did not love it, but I liked it. I also liked the fact that En Sabah Nur's plot had a surprising twist (well, one that I did not see coming) that did not involved his "Four Horsemen". 

I may not have a high opinion of "DAYS OF FUTURE PAST". But the movie did provide some interesting consequences that played out in "APOCALYPSE". One, both movies allowed Xavier and Mystique to become close again, following their estrangement in "X-MEN: FIRST-CLASS". In one of the movie's more interesting scenes, Mystique discovers that she has become something of a legend to some of the younger mutants, including Xavier's students. The movie also allowed Jean Grey the opportunity to learn to utilize her "Dark Phoenix" powers with more control . . . and without Xavier trying to suppress her. Do not get me wrong. I am one of those fans who actually enjoyed "X-MEN: THE LAST STAND". But it was nice to see Xavier dealing with Jean's powers with a healthier attitude. And although I was not impressed by how Singer and Kinberg pushed Storm into the background - especially during the film's second half, it was nice to get a peek into her life as a young Cairo pickpocket before she ended up as one of Apocalypse's minions and later, a student at Xavier's school.

I certainly had no problem with the movie's productions. I thought Grant Major did an exceptional job in not only re-creating ancient Egypt for the movie's prologue and for the rest of it, the early 1980s. This is not surprising, considering Major's work with director Peter Jackson on movies such as "THE LORD OF THE RINGS" trilogy. Newton Thomas Sigel's cinematography contributed to the movie's epic and sweeping look. Louise Mingenbach's costumes, along with Geoffroy Gosselin and Anne Kuljian's set decorations struck me as a solid reflection of the movie's early 1980s setting. But the two aspects of the movie's visual style that really impressed me were Michael Louis Hill and John Ottman's editing, especially in scenes that involved En Sabah Nur's entombing in the movie's beginning and the X-Men's showdown with the ancient mutant. I was especially impressed with the movie's special effects, especially in the very two scenes that I had just pointed out.

The acting featured in "X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" also struck me as impressive. Well, to be honest, there were only a few performances that really caught my notice. However, I certainly had no problem with the other performances. Of the four actors who portrayed En Sabah Nur's "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse", only one left no impression upon me - namely Ben Hardy, who portrayed Angel. The character barely had any lines and if I am mistaken, I could have sworn that Angel's character was from a younger generation (that of Rogue and Iceman's) - at least in the current movie franchise. I can also say the same about actress Lana Candor, who portrayed Jubilee. Not only did the actress barely had any lines, she was also portrayed as an Xavier student from Rogue and Iceman's generation in a previous movie. 

Although Alexandra Shipp, who portrayed Storm, and Olivia Munn, who portrayed Psylocke; were shifted to the background after their characters were introduced; both managed to impress me in the end. Shipp's portrayal of the adolescent Storm struck me as rather lively and energetic. And Munn was effectively intimidating as the mutant enforcer, who becomes one of En Sabah Nur's minions. The movie also featured solid performances from Rose Byrne, who returned as C.I.A. Agent Moira McTaggert; Sophie Turner and Tye Sheridan as the adolescent Jean Grey and Scott Summers aka "Cyclops"; Kodi Smit-McPhee as the younger Kurt Wagner aka "Nightcrawler"; Lucas Till as Alex Summers aka Havok; Nicholas Hoult as Dr. Hank McCoy aka "Beast"; Josh Helman as William Stryker; and Evan Peters as the always amusing Peter Maximoff aka "Quicksilver". If you are careful, you might also spot Hugh Jackman, Zeljko Ivanek, Ally Sheedy and of course, Stan Lee. 

Only four performances in this movie really impressed me. One of them turned out to be James McAvoy's portrayal of Charles Xavier aka "Professor X". At first, McAvoy's performance seemed solid . . . almost perfunctory. But once it became apparent that Professor Xavier's fate was connected with with En Sabah Nur's scheme, McAvoy skillfully portrayed the telepathic mutant with a great deal of emotion and pathos. Michael Fassbender proved to be equally fascinating as the emotionally battered Erik Lensherr. He did a great job in conveying Magneto's reactions to the deaths of a family and peaceful life, and to being emotionally manipulated by En Sabah Nur. Jennifer Lawrence continued to impress me with her excellent portrayal of the complex Raven aka "Mystique". I found it fascinating to watch the 20-something actress portray a character who had become battle hardened and mature after spending two decades fighting on behalf of fellow mutants. Many critics have complained about Oscar Isaac's portrayal of the movie's main villain, En Sabah Nur aka "Apocalypse". Apparently, they could not get past the actor's make-up or mask. Well, I could. And I thought Isaac did a pretty damn good job in portraying a villain who was not only something of an egomaniac, but also a world-class manipulator. And he did so with great skill and subtlety. 

I am not saying that "X-MEN: APOCALYPSE" was one of the best movies from the summer of 2016. Nor am I saying that it was one of the best in the "X-MEN" movie franchise. But I certainly do not believe that it was one of the worst. As far as I am concerned, the worst in the movie franchise was released four-and-a-half months earlier. But I thought it was something of an improvement over the convoluted plot that seemed to mar "X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST", thanks to Bryan Singer's direction, Simon Kinberg's screenplay and an excellent cast led by James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender.