Yes, please.

Still can't believe Psylocke looks like Psylocke.

two words.... snik snik.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jer8XjMrUB4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I know it's just a cameo thing but this movie got a few more hype points with me.

Agreed.

As far the movie goes, here is what i think could happen, and how it will ultimately tie in to Wolverine's (Hugh Jackman's) final movie next year.

I have a feeling that the only way Apocalypse will be defeated is if the X-Men trigger "Phoenix" within Jean Grey and unleash her. In terms of power, Phoenix is pretty much the only mutant capable of defeating Apocalypse (if I understand correctly).

However - in their desperation to prevent Apocalypse from destroying the world and turning to "Phoenix" in the process, the X-Men awaken a new beast......which leads to the next movie in 2017.

Wolverine does his best to stop Phoenix but past memories of him killing the original "Phoenix" gets to him and so in the 'heat of the moment', Wolverine doesn't have the heart to kill Phoenix (Jean Grey) again and so this time around, Wolverine is the one that jobs.

At this point, Eric and Charles are working together now in an effort to stop Phoenix. No one can stop Phoenix, but they realize that there is a mutant out there that has the potential to stop Phoenix...........and his name is Gambit. That's where the movie ends.

Fucking hate gambit.

Sounds good, all the way until it turns out the only person who can stop Phoenix is Gambit.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/ar...men-apocalypse

Nevermind the news, but fuck's sake, why is Sophie Turner dressed like for Game of Thrones here? I just don't see her as Jean Grey.

Dunno.... doesn't seem like she is dressed like for GoT at all... unless there is a pic not loading somewhere or I am missing something....

She's dressed like a teenage girl from the 1980s, so...

For those that care, this is currently sitting at 49% on Rotten Tomatoes.

it doesn't come out worldwide for like 2 weeks, who rates these things?

Critics.

So no one that matters haha

Probably sucks because they made it all about Jennifer Lawrence.

Still better than if let's say, Jubilee was in the first movie and then the actress would go on to be an Academy Award winning superstar.

Just imagine a Jubilee-centered X-Men franchise.

Or better yet, some D-list awful mess like Beak.

http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/...56405aab15.jpg

Haha. So true. I am still going to enjoy the hell out of this movie just like every other X Men movie.

Indeed. I enjoyed X-Men 3, even if everyone else hated it. I'm just a sucker for the X-Men franchise.

I dunno, you prob just arent listening to the "right critics." Once you find someone who's on your wavelength you'll tune out the ones that aren't. But critics are valuable.

No they aren't.

you're right I should just piss away my money randomly.

Hell ya. XMEN rules in general.

Well I don't read too many critic reviews, but just for example, I didn't see one critic review preview-blurb-thing about Civil War that said it was amazing... they all said it was not nearly as good as previous films... yet every fan review I came across said it was the best marvel movie yet.... I just think the majority of critics have their heads far up their own asses and don't want to admit when some movies are good.

That's my point though, You need to find critics that have similar tastes. Reading random critic reviews isnt a very good way to go about it. But when you find a guy thats likes most of the same things you do for similar reasons you can trust that review to vet a film you arent very sure on. For example I'm on the fence about Suicide Squad. I'll wait till the reviews drop and see if I should risk it.


And, to be fair, if I see most critics rating a summer blockbuster super hero flick in the 7-10 range (or like...75ish and up on Meta critic) I can be pretty confident its worth my money to see for myself.


I'm looking to see whether or not I should wait for Free TV or not. I'm most likely going to see these things at some point, but I'm really glad I had critics to tell me to wait on Wolverine, DB:E and the FF movies.

There will never be another Roger Ebert (or Gene Siskel)

Discovering whether a movie appeals to me or not I consider a part of the experience. Not watching a movie based on some guy's opinion is way odd to me.

Yeah I've never cared about critics' reviews. It's fun to see films I like getting praise (I'm absolutely loving all the acclaim Civil War is getting right now), but ultimately I judge films by my own interests. They either appeal to me or they don't.

By default though, I typically see every comic book film in the cinema, even if they got shitty reviews. Despite the panning it got, I enjoyed Dawn of Justice, and loved Civil War, but then, I also enjoyed Street Fighter, Daredevil, Spider-Man 3, Punisher Warzone and a shit-load of other films that I probably shouldn't.

It's a fun indicator of people's opinions, but the fact there are professional "critics" is ludacrous to me, since everyone enjoys different things. It's not different than reading the review of some random guy on Amazon.

With that said, I couldn't care less if X-Men got universally panned, I still think it looks awesome and I still know that I'm gonna love it (loved all the others).

Yeah I just like seeing these kinds of movies. I'm not blind to potential flaws, but I'd hardly ever say I pissed away cash or anything. My value is paramount, not 'some guy'.

Shut the fuck up Juan

Yeah we clearly view finances differently. Which is fine.

No I'm not one to play with my money.

This is about subjective value in a movie. None of us spends money worse than the other. Do you.

And with that post, you just validated what Destor said.

He really did, but again thats fine. Its a personal priority thing.

And that's the thing. A negative review from some critic won't scare me away from watching a movie I want to watch.

But it works the other way. Some movies just go over my head, I don't even acknowledge them, but then I read all about them, how critics love them and whatnot and I decide to watch them.

So in short, critics can't discourage me from seeing what I want, but they can encourage me to watch what I wouldn't even consider.

I am drunk, I hope what I meant to say is clear.

Completely agree, once ive decided i want to see a thing then I don't read reviews. Its the movies im undecided on that i read reviews for.

I take what critics have to say with the same amount of seriousness I take what fans have to say. So essentially if one critic says it's crap I'm not really phased, but when a bunch of them start saying it I'm gonna start thinking twice. If fans also start panning it too I'm gonna give it a pass like I would pretty much any other movie. Like Destor has said, my money is important to me. I don't have an extra 12 bucks to blow every time I go to the movies just to see if I might like something. I have to be very picky about what I spend on, and critics (along with fan reviews) help me do that.

Wishbone has it right.

Never listen to critics. If I like a movie I'll go see it, a critique is not going to make me change my mind. Read a lot of critics reviews after I've seen a movie for laughs.

How do you like a movie if you haven't seen it?

In response to the "critics don't matter" line. It's completely false. BvS is a prime, recent example that critics do matter. The bad buzz the negative reviews created shot it in the foot, and after an opening weekend with movie goers who were already committed to seeing it, it fell off a cliff from bad word of mouth.

Not to mention, if critics didn't matter, Rotten Tomatoes wouldn't exist and putting a "certified fresh" sticker in ads and in DVD sleeve covers wouldn't matter either. They clearly matter.

If you prefer too blow $12 on a movie uninformed and having no idea what to expect, then by all means. Ignorance can be bliss. But let's not silly, here.

Trailers, and being a fan of certain franchises. Im not going to go see a movie I dont like.

I guess I just don't understand how you like something you haven't seen.

I don't understand what you're not understanding. For example I like the X-Men, I'll go watch the new X-Men movie.

You said if you like a movie, you'll go watch it. How do you know if you like the movie if you haven't seen it. That makes no sense. I like to eat snake. I've never eaten any. But I like it. Zero sense.

Now, if you like the X-Men and therefore will see the movie they're in because you like the source material, then that's different.

But that's not what you're saying.

This is why bad movies get made

Yeah, if I'm a fan of the source material I'll like the movie and therefore go see it. I'll judge the movie after I see it but I always go in expecting to like the movie. █Do you not watch a trailer and decide if you want to go see that movie or not. I have to like something if I'm going to go see it. Would you go watch something you don't like? That would make zero sense to me.

So bad movies get made because studios put out trailers to gain intrest in a movie and people are fans of certian franchises? If the demand for a movie is there then why not make the movie. Some movies are bad, they all cant be homeruns. I think we view movie different, I've never been to a movieand regretted it. The theater is an experience to me, you get to watch a movie on a big screen with lots of people for a low price.

What are some movies you think are bad. I usually tend to like critically acclaimed bad movies. Like Punisher War Zone, Green Lantern, and Dawn of Justice.

Booty Call. The theatre experience is made for movies like that.

Yes. Capitalism does not substitute for quality though. "Make the movie if it makes money" is a soul crushing way to think about a form of art meant to inspire.

MAKE X-MEN MOVIES GREAT AGAIN

Yeah, I don't look at movies as a form of art meant to inspire. They are a form of entertainment for 2 or so hours and that's it. Have never been inspired by a movie to my knowledge.

I don't watch a lot of movies, have never seen the Booty Call movie you mentioned. Have actually just started going back to the movies since Star Wars came out.

That's really sad honestly, like I genuinely want to hug you.

:(

What's sad about it? Seeing it as art meant to inspire just seems really deep to me. What does that even to mean. No need to be sad, I enjoy movies I'm just not "inspired" by them.

I am as equally equipped to explain to you what you're missing out on by never having had a deeply profound and personal expirience from a film, book or song as I am equipped to describe color.






Pretty weird having a discussion in an X-Men thread about meaningful deep connections to art..but here we are.

Nothing wrong with Simple Fan's perspective. It's no different than wrestling, some people take it as a super serious art-form, others as light-hearted entertainment. Leave the fella alone.

I'm the exact same way. I loved X-Men 3 as well, and I'm almost certain that I'll love Apocalypse as well.


I still predict that Jean Grey will be the one to kill Apocalypse, or be responsible for putting him back in the tomb. Jean Grey/Phoenix is the only mutant powerful enough to defeat a God.


In terms of Wolverine/Hugh Jackman only being in one more movie after this, Marvel has to find a logical way to discontinue/kill off Wolverine, and that's where I think Phoenix will come in.


I've heard rumors that in a future movie, Channing Tatum will play the role of Gambit (which is why I originally thought/felt that Gambit would eventually play a large role in defeating Phoenix), but I also agree with Fignuts/Rammstein that the mediocre Gambit defeating Phoenix would be quite anti-climatic.


Will be interesting to see what happens.

Wolverine will just walk off in the sunset or something. Just have him go back to Canada at the end or something on his own adventure. No need to kill him. Especially if his new movie is in the future.

1. Fox not marvel
2. Gambit has been indefinitely shelved

Seems the Wolverine that appears in the movie will NOT be the Wolverine that Charles met in X-Men 1.

Just got back. Fucking loved it. As I knew I would. Not gonna spoil anything or go into depth because I doubt most of ya have seen it yet, but gotta say at the very end before the credits, long-time fans of the characters are gonna mark the fuck out. I loved it!

Imagining them recreating the animated 90s intro now with the music. Anything less and I will be dissapointed now.

Now THAT would be pretty amazing! They should do that anyway as a little DVD bonus or a viral thing. Just something goofy. That'd be awesome.

Question for Rammsteinmad

Is this out in the US yet? Any of you guys seen it? This is a photo of what has me super excited! It's probably not actually that big of a spoiler to the film, but just something I though was very, very cool.

You're just watching shit movies then.

No, it means I just enjoy movies. I'm not going to watch a fictional movie and be inspired.

You mean you don't see Cyclops and try to shoot lasers out of your eyes? Wtf is wrong with you.

im just a fan.

Movie was badass all the way around. I did fear it was be to much J Lawrence but she still seemed like a main side character as Mystic always is.

Olivia Munn is one of the hottest people ever too.

This was really good. I dont understand why it was "panned."

Solid summer action flick. I wish theyd bounce Singer and let thwm get more comic book-y but it wasnt bad. Better than many of the films from the franchise.

Loved the dig at Last Stand.

It wasn't terrible, but I found Apocalypse a little too cheesy for my liking for some reason. I was expecting him to be a bit more badass.

Yeah and hsis power set was...an interesting choice.

I liked it.

Jean Grey and Nightcrawler were great additions. Cyclops/Storm were interesting too. I like how emotional all the X-Men films are. Quicksilver, again, nearly steals the show.

Love Nghtcrawler so much. Really excited and happy he is going to be in the future films. does anyone know how many more films they plan to make in this timeline?

Gonna go see this tonight.

So I saw this. It wasn't bad. Just wasn't very good. I found Apocalypse to be really dull. The way he was acted, presented, his motive, all just really blah.

The story arcs for the characters weren't there either. I mean, they were. But none of it was too intriguing.

There were too many new characters to the point that they get short changed on development.

Quicksilver was once again one of the best parts of the movie.

I'd say it's 6/10 overall. A competent if unneeded film.

You don't need to develop Scott, Jean, or Nightcrawler because you already know who they are from the previous movies. It just so happens they are kids now.

Apoc's motive is always the same. No idea why that is dull.

Wrong. Just because they were in movies a decade ago doesn't mean you know who they are. They never actually bothered to give you origins about those characters either. So this as a shot to give them some depth and expand on them.

It's also obvious this Nightcrawler is not the same as the previous one considering the timeline. So no, we don't know him either.

Apocalypse was dull because he didn't do anything and his powers weren't anything spectacular. He spends most of the movie babbling about until the third act, when even then he doesn't really accomplish anything of real heft. Magneto did more damage than Apocalypse. I just found him underwhelming. And the powers they decide to display were meh. He didn't seem anymore powerful than any other threat they've encountered.

DOFP had real stakes on the line and the movie did a great job of presenting them. This feels like a step down and I can see why the critical reception is what it is. It's not bad and was enjoyable for the most part. I just find that the villain was really dull and didn't add anything we haven't seen before.

Do you want the new Spider-Man movie to spend 30 minutes in why/how he has his powers? I for one, and everyone I know, wants new content. Not going over the same material again.

Movies are only so long and the future movies will go into more depth when the movie actually revolves around them.

You never said anything about Apoc's abilities so whatever there.

I'm sick of superhero origins in the movies.

Yeah, I'm a long-time fan of the characters so it's all good for me. And with this being the 6th X-Men movie, and the 9th in the movie universe, I'd say it's at a point where they can't keep catering to people who haven't followed the series.

Plus, it's one of those movies. It's the X-Men vs. Apocalypse. You want intriguing character development and exposition watch the Shawshank Redemption or something. This is a summer superhero movie.

But whatever, it's all subjective really. I don't care if people weren't satisfied with underdeveloped characters etc. I enjoyed it.

So how was that Wolverine scene?

Was he amnesiac and wild?

Did you not see the movie yet? It was a typical Wolverine against a bunch of guys with guns.

No, I haven't seen it yet. Too broke for cinema lately.

Was just wondering.

Not related. We've gotten Spider-Man's origin already. Twice. They haven't gone over that material yet for any of these characters sans Wolverine. So I'm not sure what you're trying to reach for there.

Ah. It was a fun 5 minute scene with him going straight nuts.

Cool. He should be nuts escaping Weapon X.

The movie before DOFP was a origin movie. We don't constantly need them. also, what everyone else said/seems to get.

Ya. I didn't know he was going to be in the movie so it was a nice treat. I didn't read any info on the movie before attending.

I've seen everyone except Origins: Wolverine. That's the only film outside of First Class that touches on these characters and their beginnings with any depth. They're not really catering too anyone. These characters existed in the first film with little story behind them, except Wolverine.

Civil War had intriguing character development. Somebody mentioned Cap's and Tony's stories being fueled by their own previous film experiences and thought it as a brilliant tie in. Civil War is a summer superhero movie. But it's also well written and there's a start and finish for the characters from a personal standpoint.

That's not presented here. You can have it both ways. I'm not asking for Oscar worthy writing but this film it's a step down from the last 2 because it just meandered with too many characters being intro'd and a villain that was boring.

Not to mention, they're introducing a completely new and reset timeline that's no longer related to the original film. The X-Men story itself was the best part. They could've done without Apocalypse for a while. He just didn't do it for me.

Except I'm not saying we need another origin movie. I'm asking that these characters be fleshed out a bit more than "hey, it's Cyclops. You kinda know him". Civil War established their Spider-Man in a 5minute scene. It's not hard. You don't need an entire film around it. But you need to actually give these characters purpose. Which they don't have. They're super powers with names. Instead of characters with powers.

In The Last Stand did you really care that they didn't give much backstory on the girl who walked through walls? I sure as hell didn't. This movie wasn't about Scot and Jean. It was about finishing off what started to begin a new story. I am sure you will get more depth when the movie revolves around the characters.