I don't understand why "X-Men: Apocalypse" received poor ratings. I found the movie to be very good. If you are a fan of the X-Men and/or enjoyed "Captain America: Civil War", you will likely enjoy this film.
Instead of offering my own review, I am going to respond to the "top critics" from Rottentomatoes.com:
"It's basically a closing chapter to a feeble trilogy that started out pretty well and then ran out of gas... Oscar Isaac wasted in the role of an invulnerable ancient supervillain who becomes vulnerable just in time for the final showdown." Andrew O'Hehir (Salon.com) Clearly this critic is biased against the comic, for he refers to it as a "feeble trilogy". And if he paid attention (and didn't look forward to his scathing review), he would've seen that Apocalypse was not vulnerable, but a "back door" access was made to begin defeating him via Jean Grey in his mind (something that wasn't possible earlier in the film).
"Mutants galore infest "X-Men: Apocalypse," but the pile-on quickly becomes wearying....but the storyline, such as it is, would have benefited from major pruning." Peter Rainer (ChristianScienceMonitor) A pile-on of mutants? There are possible three additional mutants added, with only one being introduced for the first time (Nightcrawler). Inclusion shouldn't be an issue, it's time taken for backstories that become clutter. And, "pruning"? This is a very simple story, only the characters are given a little more dimension beyond simple cartoon characters.
And my response to Rainer, applies to Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine, as well ("Enough already. Singer throws so much mutant at us that nothing sticks. I was almost rooting for Trump to impose a quota.") Jean Grey, Cyclops, Mystique, Quicksilver, and Nightcrawler, with the last one being the only new character (though, he did appear previously). Mr. Travers, the movie is not called, "X-Man," and per your complaint, like O'Hehir from Salon.com, it appears you don't like this comic series.
Well, I could go on, but, you get the point. The story is good -- and not convoluted. The acting is good. And, of course, the directing is good. If you liked the other "X-Men" movies, you like this one. And, personally, I found this one better than "Days of Future Past", which was a bit convoluted for my taste.
Instead of offering my own review, I am going to respond to the "top critics" from Rottentomatoes.com:
"It's basically a closing chapter to a feeble trilogy that started out pretty well and then ran out of gas... Oscar Isaac wasted in the role of an invulnerable ancient supervillain who becomes vulnerable just in time for the final showdown." Andrew O'Hehir (Salon.com) Clearly this critic is biased against the comic, for he refers to it as a "feeble trilogy". And if he paid attention (and didn't look forward to his scathing review), he would've seen that Apocalypse was not vulnerable, but a "back door" access was made to begin defeating him via Jean Grey in his mind (something that wasn't possible earlier in the film).
"Mutants galore infest "X-Men: Apocalypse," but the pile-on quickly becomes wearying....but the storyline, such as it is, would have benefited from major pruning." Peter Rainer (ChristianScienceMonitor) A pile-on of mutants? There are possible three additional mutants added, with only one being introduced for the first time (Nightcrawler). Inclusion shouldn't be an issue, it's time taken for backstories that become clutter. And, "pruning"? This is a very simple story, only the characters are given a little more dimension beyond simple cartoon characters.
And my response to Rainer, applies to Peter Travers of Rolling Stone magazine, as well ("Enough already. Singer throws so much mutant at us that nothing sticks. I was almost rooting for Trump to impose a quota.") Jean Grey, Cyclops, Mystique, Quicksilver, and Nightcrawler, with the last one being the only new character (though, he did appear previously). Mr. Travers, the movie is not called, "X-Man," and per your complaint, like O'Hehir from Salon.com, it appears you don't like this comic series.
Well, I could go on, but, you get the point. The story is good -- and not convoluted. The acting is good. And, of course, the directing is good. If you liked the other "X-Men" movies, you like this one. And, personally, I found this one better than "Days of Future Past", which was a bit convoluted for my taste.