X-Men: Days Of Future Past review

Review Ryan Lambie 13 May 2014 - 06:03

A bleak dystopia and the 1970s collide in the sprawling X-Men: Days Of Future Past. Here’s Ryan’s review...

You certainly can’t fault the scale of director Bryan Singer’s ambition in X-Men: Days Of Future Past. Here, he attempts no less a feat than to tie together two disparate strands of the X-Men film universe - that of the timeline he began with the first film in 2000, and the 60s-set X-Men: First Class, directed by Matthew Vaughn in 2011, into one decades-spanning opus.

Based on the much loved two-book run of the same name from 1981, Days Of Future Past takes us forward to the year 2023 - a bleak, eternally benighted future where mutants and humans alike have been subdued by advanced robots called the Sentinels. Under the watchful eye of an elder Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart), the X-Men make a last ditch effort to go back in time in order to save the present. This requires Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) to use her unique powers to launch Wolverine’s consciousness back into his younger self (both versions played by Hugh Jackman, but you probably already knew that) and warn the X-Men circa 1973 of the danger that awaits them 50 years on.

There, Wolverine must orient himself in an era of disco music, wide lapels and lava lamps, and convince the younger X-Men - among them an understandably morose Professor X (this one played again by James McAvoy), and Beast (Nicholas Hoult) - that they’re in the midst of a pivotal and deadly year for mutantkind.

This is but one tiny fraction of a continent- and epoch-spanning plot which takes in Richard Nixon, the machinations of anti-mutant scientist Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage, as effortlessly brilliant as you’d expect), an incarcerated Magneto (Michael Fassbender), an embittered Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) and the politically strained climate of the post-Vietnam war. We haven’t even mentioned all of the other returning faces, such as Storm (Halle Berry) and Ian McKellen’s incarnation of Magneto, plus still others we shan’t spoil here (we've been far more spoiler-free than it may appear!)

It’s a lot to take in, for sure, and the sheer number of characters means that, while Wolverine provides a dependable hub for the story, there’s little room for the rest of the crowded cast. James McAvoy’s Professor X gets the narrative’s sole fully-formed character arc, while numerous other returning faces are relegated to mere cameos.

Of the new faces, Evan Peters stands out as Quicksilver - a chipper, devious young mutant who can slow down time, with spectacular results. It’s an entertaining performance, yet Peters' character abruptly disappears approximately 10 minutes after his introduction. Quicksilver is a victim, it seems, of a dense and mechanical plot which races from location to location and forgets about certain characters once they’ve outlived their usefulness.

What’s unusual about Days Of Future Past is that, despite all the things going on, Singer doesn’t overload the film with action. There are major set-pieces at the beginning and end as you might expect, plus a few smaller action sequences peppered in between. Yet the greater percentage of the 130-minute duration is given over to the interactions between the characters, with all their accompanying self-doubt and grudges.

In dramatic terms, Days Of Future Past is effective; Michael Fassbender doesn’t get as much room to stretch out as he did in First Class, but he’s as suave and charismatic as he ever was, and there’s still the same palpable chemistry between he and McAvoy. The themes which make the X-Men universe so compelling are also well served: Days Of Future Past dares to touch on addiction, prejudice, self-acceptance and genocide, all within the framework of a $220m summer movie. Frustratingly, however, the strands of the story take too long to satisfyingly intertwine.

Days Of Future Past has certain things in common with James Cameron’s The Terminator and T2, in that it involves characters heading into the past in order to change the course of history. All three films start out with clear objectives for their characters, but where The Terminator and T2 stick to that objective from beginning to end - rooted as they are in what we’ll clumsily tag the ‘chase thriller’ genre - Days Of Future Past heads off on tangents: crises are averted, only for others to arise straight afterwards. Heroes meet villains in a deadly stand-off, only for the plot to conspire to break them up so they can unite again later.

Fortunately, Days Of Future Past finds its focus in the final third. Actions in one era are intercut with those in the next, and finally, there’s a sense that events are moving in decisive, unpredictable directions. Here, the often astonishing special effects and sets created by Singer and his team finally mesh with the story, and Days Of Future Past builds to a satisfying crescendo.

This new X-Men, therefore, is an entertaining and visually dazzling entry in the franchise, full of amusing period detail and scope for future stories. The first hour or so fails to replicate the assured pace and storytelling of Singer’s earlier X-Men movies, but it rallies for an explosive and crowd-pleasing final act.

X-Men: Days Of Future Past is out on the 22nd May.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.


Disqus - noscript

No generic third-act then? I'm pleased. Looks solid.

"What’s unusual about Days Of Future Past is that, despite all the things going on, Singer doesn’t overload the film with action"

Having seen the other Brian Singer X-Men movies, this is hardly a revelation... half the problem I have with the X-Men movies is that they are mostly boring and even the action scenes are boring and slow...

Would you prefer Brett Ratner to direct this movie?

Nope. There are more than one other director who could do this, ya know! :)

Like Matthew Vaughan! Or someone (anyone!) else.

I'm a total X-Men nut, I have 1000s of X-Men comics... but I don't feel any of Singer's movies have ever captured the spirit of the comics/characters.

I don't care for the change of details or that kinda stuff, I just don't ever get that *feeling*, in the same way that the MCU films do, that capture the spirit of their characters so well.

God, I wish Marvel still had the X-Men movie license!

I know the star rating debate will always go on on here, but this doesn;t read as 3 stars to me.
I really can't wait for this.

Fox are so on the ball recently. From the sound of it, this review and others we've go a third-in-a-row great CBM from them

Do they address how Professor X is back alive in his body?

Still excited to see it but slightly disappointed to hear they may have created an overly complex plot.

The beauty of the DOFP comic is the fantastic-yet-simple story. A member of the X-Men goes back in time to prevent an assassination which turned people against mutantkind. Great.

There seems to be an idea today that more complicated stories are the way to go (see The Dark Knight Rises, for example). Personally I think a great initial concept combined with a strong and simple plot, with great characters and character development has always made for the best movies.

I'm just glad The Terminator was made in 1984.

Dealt with in the end credit scenes at the end of XM3 and The Wolverine.

I want to rewatch a couple of previous X Men films before seeing this, but don't have time for them all. First Class is a must, what else would you guys suggest? I don't know whether to go for the best of the first 3... or watch 3 because it's the most recent leading up to this story.

"Fortunately, Days Of Future Past finds its focus in the final third" that's good to hear after The Wolverine lost it at that point.

i don't know, i would not say that "Fortunately, Days Of Future Past finds its focus in the final third" is something that would need to be said in a 4* movie, a 4* movie would not have lost its focus in the first place imho.

Just watch the second one, it's the best one

Agreed, and the first one's not bad. Skip X-Men 3, just skip it. Pretend it doesn't exist.

Can't wait!

Well end of X3 shows him talking in the body of a coma patient I was sure and Woverine he just shows up. I don't remember him addressing being in his original body. What have I forgotten?

Sounds like a nearly, but not quite 4 star review. Fair enough.

A wizard did it.

I was fortunate enough to be at the premiere last night.

It is a five-star film. You guys will love it. I'll say no more for fear of spoilers, but I urge you to see it ASAP (before the spoilers come out - cos there's a couple of big ol' spoilers to be had with this one).

I watched X-Men and X2 recently and they still stand up to repeat viewings. I'd go with them and First Class.

Well, this movie apparantly costs a lot of money for FOX, so if it fails the rights might revert back to Marvel after X-Men: Apocalyps. Hopefully Marvel will make the parantage of the Maximoff twins in Avengers: Age of Ultron vague enough to insert Magneto as their father in the future.

Yeah, how will they explane that the body Professor X transferred in looks the same as the original including the inability to use his legs.

Ian McKellen popped up in his other role in this movie? ;-)

Agreed - I'm secretly hoping that X-Men and Spiderman fail badly (even tho I'll watch them both, obviously!)

2 good moments in x3. both of which can be viewed on youtube instead. Magneto moving the Golden Gate bridge and magneto pointing out he has a tattoo and no-one's ever inking him again,

In other news Channing Tatum will be Gambit in the next X-Men movie.
I myself rather see Taylor Kitsch again. I liked him.

Actually, that was explained. You'll be hard-pressed to find the interview, but after it came out they did explain that the comatose patient had been Xavier's twin, who is a female in the comics. His telepathy had manifested in the womb and put his brother into that coma.

That sounds awful, especially since his twin in the comics was a great villain,

*X3 spoiler*

And the death of Xavier, that was impressively well done,

As a Movie Fan first, I absolutely detest all this "anti-MCU" Marvel fanboy snobbery. Marvel made some average films too, Both the Thor's and Iron Man 2 were pants. Hulk wasn't a huge hit and then they re-cast the actor and lost the consistency which is ruins the universe for me. Not to mention that most of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has been below average despite being "MCU" heavy.

If it wasn't for Sony/Fox bailing Marvel out by taking a risk in the first place, then Marvel would never have survived or got the financial backing loan to set up their independent studio. It's not Sony or Fox's fault that Marvel doesn't have 2 of it's most Iconic set of Characters. It's Marvels own fault for poor business management. The lack of key IP's also helps them to get the best out of what they have left. As a Movie fan, I don't want to treat each film just like a TV episode, there could be around 30 MCU films by 2020. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is not as rewarding or special enough for me to eat through that much popcorn without getting bored sooner or later.

so another x-men wolverine film then, ffs

they have actors like fassbander, mcavoy, stewart and mckellen on board yet they choose to focus on jackman yet again, when are they gonna realise that there are actually other characters in the x-men universe other than wolverine? nothing against jackman but f**kin hell, why does every single film have to be about his character?

Weirdly specific question: Is there a quick scene of a 70's newscast at some point, featuring a very Ron Burgundy-looking newscaster? A good friend of mine shot that part last year, and we're all really excited to go see it next week, but we're all nervous that his scene might end up on the cutting room floor. Any chance you remember that newscaster being in the finished film?

Very possibly - because there are a good few scenes featuring news reports and the like, so I'd say there's every chance.

I hope so for your friend's sake - that is incredibly cool!

Nice! Thanks chief.

Personally I far prefer the X-Men movies to the Marvel ones.

As a movie fan I detest this snobbery of yours too. You're basically acting like your opinion is gospel. If you think both Thor's and Iron Man 2 are pants say so, don't state it like its a fact.

To your other comment to me , I know what the review was about obviously you pillock. Grow up you big baby. Superhero,s are for children.

Sad to hear that the plot really is overcomplex, but the scale and ambition of this movie has finally reached the levels I have always wanted to see. Sentinels, the Cold War, and every mutant fighting together sounds remarkable anyway, you can bet I will be seeing this!!!!

Ok I know u don't wanna spoil the movie but can u at least tell me if storm is finally powerful and kicking ass!? Or is she a disappointment again? Cuz I feel in the future she should definitely be the power house of her team!... Well her and magneto

Say what u want bout ratner but at least he did decent fight scenes and didn't make half the movie of them just tlkin. Which is wat singer does followed by like a 2min action scene. I thought the director of first class should a dne it again. He gave all the characters screen time unlike singer who seems to only focus on developing wolverine

Agreed. As much of a mess X-Men 3 was, at least they had some decent fights...! :)

Meh. I'm quite happy with my anti-MCU Marvel fanboy snobbery.

I am, after all, a Marvel fanboy snob. Of the highest order.

For the record, I like both Thor's and Iron Man 2 (and 3!), significantly more than any of the X-Men movies and Spiderman movies, despite the fact I'm more a fan of X-Men and Spiderman than the Avengers. :)

Cool... :)

Nice one... :)

Yea I pretty much agree with everything u been saying lol. X-men are my favorite super heroes and their movies are boring bcuz singer wants it real worldy and doesn't wanna use there powers or have mutants fighting mutants the right way. Im sorry but his lame 2min boring action scenes don't cut it. Which is why I also like Thor and iron man and pretty much every other comic movie more... which is ashame cuz I love x-men.. hell I know I'll get hated on for this but even tho they screwd X3 up, I still find it more enjoyable than the 1st two because it had mutants fighting mutants and action and power displays more than once! It just felt more "super hero-ish". Which is how it needs to be and feel! Idc for real world approach! Tht, as well as focusing everything on wolverine just makes these movie drag. Avengers focused on all the characters and utilized everyone good and had action and power displays. If avengers can do this, I don't see why x-men cant

Yeah... although, having said that... most of the MCU films don't have a lot of action. Iron Man had the opening action scene, the 'tank missle'/ aeroplane scene and the end scene. And that was it. But at least they were interesting. Iron Man 2 had only a couple. Avengers had 3 *big* action scenes, but again - they aren't all out action. But they were GOOD.

The biggest problem I have with the X-Men movies, is that none of the characters resemble the comics. At least in MCU movies, Tony Stark is Tony Stark. Thor is Thor. Captain America is Captain America.

In the X-Men movies, Iceman is a child. Rogue is a child, and a weak, mild, wimpy child. Rogue in the comics is simply bares not resemblance to the movie incarnation. Storm, again, quiet, lame, a massive contrast to the strong minded leader, the mega-powerful 'real' Storm. Which means the X-Men movies are about a bunch of different characters, not the X-Men. They just share names. Could just as easily be a different team all together...

The comics X-Men is about an international team of powerful mutants that fight a lot. The movie X-Men is Wolverine and a bunch of utterly superfluous non-characters who sit around and do bugger all.

So 'X-Men: DOFP' turned out better than 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'? Who would have thought?

Dude - I'd best say nothing. And I say that in the nicest way possible. Purely because I really don't want to spoil anything.

Do you not find, Zenith, that the Marvel movies are very light on character development and pretty heavy on superficial fights?

I far prefer the X-Men approach of focusing on characters and building up to action scenes.

I see where you are coming from, but X-Men's bazillion characters hardly have any time to actually have an story of their own (except Wolverine, Professor X, Wolverine, Magneto with some more Wolverine). And as I said below, the characters are all wrong - Rogue, Storm, Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman, Nightcrawler etc etc - all are completely different to their comic counterparts. Where as the MCU characterisation is spot on. The MCU characters *feel* right.

I also don't think that the MCU is actually action heavy (see post below, to save repeating myself). The action scenes are very good tho. The X-Men movies don't have much action, but when they do, it's boring.

Take the initial fight between the X-Men and the Brotherhood (or actually, just Toad)... it takes Cyclops half an hour to step forward, pose, make sure everyone is standing back, take one shot, miss (of course!) and give up. While all the other X-Men stand around watching him.

Or at least - that's how I remember it....! :)

Thank you for responding to my comment and then chasing me across to another board to insult me again, it has been a pleasant experience thus far.

I was going to respond to you and ask what your frustrations were in regards superhero movies and ask why you chose to express them on a board about the release of a superhero movie when maybe your comments should instead be directed towards one of the many studios making quite a lot of money off the back of this current trend. It's a trend we all know it, these things come and go and right now they are in ascendance. But instead I thought I would point you to the excellent response from Ace Stevens to your comment to me on the Telegraph from yesterday. Thanks again.

Ace Stephens Steven Fay • 14 hours ago

I don't disagree about your concern with studios not making more "adult" or "mature" films, although I imagine that has more to do with the culture at large's wants/tastes than the studios themselves (as there are plenty of "independent" - as in lower-budgeted - films for adults)...

But the suggestion that superheroes are solely for children is misguided, at best. There are plenty of materials which, thematically, explore the superhero constructs in a manner which reflects upon society's ills in a meaningful way. I am not saying I don't, again, share your frustration with the seemingly endless parade of "superhero movies" coming out which seem more "made-to-formula" than made for any due consideration philosophically outside of a few simple points...but I feel you've painted the "superhero movie" genre too broadly if you generalize it as children's fare alone.

It's probably forgotten. Continuity has never been this set of films' forte.

I actually like the fact that Marvel don't own the film rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, those two franchises already feel a bit detached from the rest of the Marvel universe in the comics, especially the X-Men and the hatred they have to face in a world populated by otherwise revered super-powered people.

Secondly, the lack of ownership gave Marvel Studios the incentive to be dig into their wider comic universe and use lesser-known characters. Using Iron Man for a first film was a gamble, and it paid off beautifully. And I doubt we would be getting 'Guardians of the Galaxy' this summer if things were otherwise. (I think the "You're welcome" in its marketing is quite justified) Marvel Studios have also done the right thing in expanding their universe and diversifying the genres as well, which will help them survive any upcoming superhero film fatigue. (Ironically enough, I think Sony and Fox's attempts - especially Sony - at building their respective 'universes' in their franchises will help this fatigue come sooner rather than later.)

Finally, it's true that Marvel Studios would probably do both Spidey and X-Men justice, but, in the end, the comic versions continue to exist regardless of the quality of their film counterparts.

The FF are the only franchise I want to return to Marvel, not for the FF themselves, strangely enough, but their surrounding characters. With Marvel Studios starting to expand their cosmic MCU, it would be nice to have a possibility of getting 'Annihilation' adapted for the big screen with the Silver Surfer and Skrulls included.

The trouble I have with the X-men films is that there's no coherency between the individual films, each is a stand alone story that cherry picks which bits it likes from previous films, ignores the rest and clumsily ties up some the loose ends in the finale.

X-men is one franchise I'd like to see a fresh reboot of, maybe that's what this new film will do by carrying on with just the 'younger' cast, although they're going to have to recast Wolverine sometime so that'll stand out a mile. I wait to see...

Got to admit that you make a compelling argument, on all counts.

It just don't have the confidence in Sony or Fox to produce anything as good as Marvel at the mo. Hence the pining for them to return to Marvel. This doesn't mean for a second I'd be happy to be proved wrong and have Sony and Fox produce totally kick arse Spiderman and X-Men films. I'd love that...! But after four mediocre or simply bad Spiderman films (haven't seen ASM2) and six bad X-Men movies, with only one decent one (First Class) - there quality ratio is the pits.

You are totally right about Marvel and Guardians and how that would never have been made by now. Also you are totally right about FF.

You wrote all that just for me ,how kind.

That's completely understandable, and part of me also pines for them to return Marvel. In an ideal world, I would honestly love to see Spidey and the X-Men done right by Marvel Studios and still get something like 'Guardians' as well. But I guess we can't have our cake and eat it too.

I think everyone would be happy if Fox, Sony and Marvel would all agree to do cameos with each other... that would be awesome...!

Because someone once told them that Wolverine is the main character and they've built the entire franchise around him (except First Class obviously, although his cameo was the best Wolverine scene of any of the films).

Plus it gets the middle-aged mums in for the obligatory topless Jackman scene.

He is going to need Wolverines healing powers soon as he his 45 now, so he'll be knocking on for 50 when the next movies come out.

Continuity is irrelevant when it comes to writing X-men films.


I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one :)

You say the Marvel characters *feel* right to you. That's fine but, to me, (most of) the X-Men films and the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films feel far closer to being right.

Also, I personally don't enjoy the Marvel fight/action scenes. They just seem a bit 'seen-it-all-before'. The end of The Avengers, for example, is just lots of explosions and building destruction in my eyes.

On the other hand, I love the Nightcrawler-in-the-White-House opening to X-Men 2 and also the part at the end of First Class where Magneto and Xavier are fighting for control of the missiles. Awesome.

It's all opinion, I suppose.

No reboots! no more repeated origins, we're 7 films in for gods sake, why does everyone want to see origins over and over???
What Singer's done here is spot on, its allowed a reboot of sorts without cancelling all the previous films, its the perfect idea and leaves it up to the viewer if they want to ignore the previous canon or not.
What I'm more concerned with is an upgrade in quality of X-Men films and the stories / characters they show, where's Cable? X-Force could be awesome, and the action and look needs to be more gritty.
Have not seen this yet but hoping DOFP will at least be better in terms of quality of film.

Right ........ is it better than Cap 2 because Cap was awesome and I rate that 4 to 4.5*, don't think this can be a 5*?

Did you enjoy First Class? How does it compare?

Captain America 1/2 are two of the best superhero movies of all time. FACT!

I really liked First Class.

Days Of Future Past, IMHO, is superior.

This is a great question because I LOVED Cap 2 (even more than Cap 1) and so this is something I've given a lot of thought to. I'm going to say that DOFP is better than Cap 2 (hard to compare, as they're very different films: Cap 2 is more conspiracy action-thriller, whereas DOFP is time-travel action-awesomeness (not a genre, granted).

Dr. Doom is a really great Avengers villain and it would be great for Marvel to have the rights to the Inhumans, Molecule Man and The Beyonder.

Seriously? I don't like him much for the role... I don't know if Kitsch had the acting, but he definitely had the loooks.

They have such a nice, old-fashioned but renewed, 50s romance thing going on. I love them too.

I hated the Sam Riami films - turned Peter in to a simpering wimp (ie. not Peter Parker). Spiderman barely made a single trademark witty quip (something they've fixed in the ASM movies) and Mary Jane? I mean, where is the larger than life, ego-bombshell? The film Mary Jane was practically a stoner mong in comparison... which is the point I'm making. All the characters look right, but they aren't the same personality.

I do agree with the First Class final action scene - it was brilliant. But we have had 5 other X-Men movies (excluding DOFP, as I've not seen that) to have two decent action sequences, (as I totally agree on the Nightcrawler scene, too ;). )

Although - *again* Nightcrawlers character is a different one to the comic. Not Kurt at all!! And I loved Alan Cummings as a casting choice. Awesome actor and perfect for the role.

But like you said - just a difference of opinion. And as I've said - I hope I get proved wrong in the future - I hope DOFP goes someway towards that - I really do. :)

Well the next movie is titled X-Men: Apocalypse so I can only assume Cable will be present in that film.

Movies that involve time-travel are usually very difficult to not over complicate because it can easily lead to plot holes and unexplained paradoxes. It's interesting that the article mentions The Terminator because Bryan Singer did consult James Cameron about time-travel before DOFP went into production.

FYI Matthew Vaughn is a producer and writer on DOFP so a lot of what is going in the film is partly his work.

Didn't know that - that's great to hear! :)

Iron Man 2 & 3 were terrible Iron Man movies. IM2 was just filler leading up to the Avengers and IM3 didn't make any sense once you actually breakdown the narrative. But that is just my opinion, if you liked them then who am I to deter a fellow comic book fan.

Your welcome. I hope we both enjoy the film.

I disagree - they were weaker in comparision to IM1, but they were still good. :)

It's funny how divisive IM3 is... half the people laud it as the best, the other half hate it more than anything...

No question that Iron Man is one of the best comic book movies ever, it's just that it set the bar so high that the subsequent sequels were underwhelming by comparison. IM2 is a forgettable follow-up to the excellent Iron Man. IM3 for me was a wasted opportunity and could have been a great movie that greatly expanded the MCU coming off of the Avengers (like Thor 2 and Cap 2). It had weak characters (with the exception of Tony Stark), plotlines that went nowhere, unexplained subplots, poor motivations for the villains, cherry picked the Extremis comic and of course the whole Mandarin fiasco.

I love Shane Black.. what can I say...? :)

For sure he is an excellent writer. Lethal Weapon, Monster Squad, and The Last Boy Scout are among some of my favorite movies. But I think he got too carried away with how he handled Iron Man 3. It was nice talking with you. Good night. :)

Yes, your comment about the new cast being a 'reboot of sorts' is what I implied

I don't want origin stories again I just think the continuity of the X-men films to date has been awful.

No way dude. Ironman 1 is better than all of the xmen movies. XMFC comes close but not quite.

The first one sucks but the second a huge improvement and I'd say the best Marvel film yet.

Can't agree with that one, pal. I don't like any of the Iron Man movies. I know many do but they don't do it for me at all.

I agree that Kirsten Dunst, whilst I like her, probably could've been improved upon as Mary Jane.

With regards to Peter Parker though, I loved him and thought he had great one liners. I thought Doc Ock was brilliant in the second one.

For me the 3 best Marvel-based movies are easily Spider-Man 2, X-Men 2 and X-Men: First Class.

Very excited to see DOFP.

Despite 3 slip-ups in the two Wolverines and The Last Stand, I think they've, on the whole, done a great job with the X-Men movies.

Of the many, many superhero movies which have been made in the last 15 years, my 3 favourite characters all hail from the X-Men: Magneto (Fassbender), Xavier (McAvoy) and Wolverine.

I think Singer is the man for the job and hope he makes many more.

Yes, but saying that, The Terminator is one of the most simple plots you could see.

So you think half of the 6 films they've made prior to this new one were slip-ups? Doesn't sound like they've done a great job to me.

I've not said the films aren't good stand alone, just that the continuity between films hasn't been there.

I liked the fresh take that First Class offered and hope this new film is the next of many quality X-men films. Casting Fassbender and McAvoy was a stroke of brilliance which bodes well for the future.

That may be why it's referenced a lot when someone writes something about time-travel in the movies.

I think you are right... the could've been tighter. The ending, for sure, was bobbins. I love all the dialogue tho, and the 'buddy-cop' thing with Tony and Rhoedy.

I loved Doc Ocks look and his arms where amazing. The hospital scene is probably the best (and most Sam Riami) of all those films.

But it annoyed me that his evil plan was... (hold on to your morals, here is comes) to give the world, renewable energy! Muah ah ah ah aaaaaaaah.

Peter should've helped him, not stopped him!

That and the '9-11' moment... "don't worry" say the entire population of NYC "we'll keep your secret Spiderman".

Aunt May's "holding out for a hero" speech.

The entire movie where he didn't wear his mask...

Doc Ock's "Peter! It is you!" line

That's just the few things off the top of my head...

Yeah Robert Downey Jr. saved the movie. Even though I didn't like the film RDJ was worth it.

Hahaha fair point about Doc Ock's motivations, I'd never thought of that.

The hospital scene is awesome, and is a perfect example of why I prefer the Raimi Spider-man and Singer/Vaughan X-men films.

All of those movies have action scenes which drive forward they narrative, play an important part in character development/character arcs and are also very cool to watch. That hospital scene is one example. The end of XMFC with Magneto/Xavier and the missiles is another.

The Marvel studios action scenes, to me, look great but that's pretty much it. The end of The Avengers when the aliens invade NYC, for example, is lots of buildings being blown up but with very little characterisation compared to the X-men films.

I think we just have different tastes. I like more characterisation whereas you prefer the big action scenes. Fair enough, but we're never going to agree, are we :)

not another wolverine movie!! they should call this movie WOLVERINE #5

In my opinion, that's why FC and X2 are so much better than the CGI fulled craps like Man of Steel lol

"Quicksilver - a chipper, devious young mutant who can slow down time, with spectacular results. "

I foolishly assumed a site called 'den of geek' would know what Quicksilver's mutant power is... I guess I was wrong

I saw it today and I thought it was rubbish.

Why does IM3 make sense?

IM3 doesn't make any sense. Too many plot holes, weak villains with even weaker motivations, subplots that go nowhere and a lack of ambition to expand the MCU in the wake of the Avengers movie.

this was a good movie to watch but just short of what a comic film should be....

I LOVED IT!! Way better than I expected. Left the cinema, got some beers, went home and started an X-Men animated series marathon, starting with DOFP :D

I think 3 stars is about right - its a good if mediocre movie, not a patch on X2. Seems they changed the script in my opinion giving the jucier death of Trask elements to Ms Laurence as she is 'hot' now - trimming back Magnetos role in it. Yes I know in the original comics it was Mystique as well but seems there was a LOT of screen-time taken over by Raven, not a bad thing admittedly but she seemed to have more to do than Wolverine who was just there, knocking around filling in the exposition and not even getting into a fight. Loved Blinks 'Portal' power but the blighted lightening covered dark earth scenario of the future is just so similar to the Matrix it was laughable. Nimrod sentinels based around 'The Fury' from the comics good, Icemans Ice-slide great but far too much sitting around chatting hokum in the middle and Professor X came across as a bit of a douche.

Sponsored Links