Alex Vs Simon: 12 Steps To Decide If X-Men Apocalypse Actually Sucks

11. The Tone

Alex: Were at a point in the superhero genre where the films can be their own, comic book-inspired thing: Batman V Superman went for a dark, heightened reality; Civil War (and Marvel in general) is all about the extended realism and character interaction; Deadpool was, well, Deadpool.

X-Men: Apocalypse goes for something more kitsch; fitting of the defining Chris Claremont-era, its a rather camp film, with a knowing silliness and constant break-outs of humour. I dont necessarily have a problem with that (camp is a bad word ever since Batman & Robin, but it has a place all X-Movies have had some element of silliness) and it could have made this a distinct piece.

It isnt though, because, like how intermittent the allusions to the eighties setting are, its all incredibly scattered; theres a pervasive seriousness and desperation to be epic in addition to all this that makes assured camp look dumb.

Simon: I actually think the tone is what I enjoyed most. Perhaps it's because I grew up watching the 90s cartoon series at its height, and reading the comparatively ridiculous 90s comics, but I really appreciated the zaniness. Kitsch is undoubtedly the right word for it, cartoonish (without the negative connotations) another.

And I personally don't think there was too much of a clash between the "epic" sequences and the lighter moments. The two can coexist, or you end up either with slapstick global destruction or Batman v Superman po-faced exposition leading to a grim pay-off. Variety is the spice of life.