6 things nobody wants to admit about X-Men: Apocalypse

Fox's X-Men franchise had many highs and lows throughout its two-decade tenure on the silver screen. It produced Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, which is probably its greatest achievement as Jackman's performance has gone on to become one of the greatest the comic book genre has ever seen. But it also produced some epic films throughout that time too, with X-Men, X-2: X-Men United, X-Men: Days of Future Past and Logan all receiving extremely positive reviews.

There's a lower end of that spectrum too, with the likes of X-Men Origins: Wolverine, X-Men: The Last Stand, and the universally-reviled Dark Phoenix all landing among its worst. Somewhere in between lies X-Men: Apocalypse.

Released in 2016, the movie was set in the new timeline crafted by the events of Days of Future Past and it brought back much of the cast from the prequel movies, with James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Nicholas Hoult, Lucas Till, Evan Peters and Rose Byrne reprising their roles from previous movies. Hugh Jackman also made a brief cameo appearance as Wolverine, while Oscar Isaac joined the cast as the titular villain.

Apocalypse failed to capitalize on the momentum set forth by Days of Future Past (which had previously reinvigorated the franchise), with fans feeling that it let down the iconic Marvel villain and often bit off more than it could chew. And that's not necessarily untrue, but there are some things - good and bad - that people aren't willing to talk about more when it comes to this movie.

6. It basically tells the same story as Avengers: Age of Ultron

Over the years, X-Men: Apocalypse and Avengers: Age of Ultron have been compared to each other from time-to-time, but that's mostly down to the fact that both feature different versions of Quicksilver. But did you ever stop to think about the fact that the two movies are surprisingly similar when it comes to their storylines?

Think about it: An all-powerful, arrogant being who deems themselves superior to everyone else decides to destroy the world so that it can be "reborn" in their image, but in order to do that they need help from younger, powerful beings who ultimately turn on him and help the heroes win. The similarities don't stop there, either, as both movies feature an all-out war in which the villain is ultimately defeated by power blasts from multiple heroes (before the youngest, powerful female hero lands the final blow).

The irony here is that both Apocalypse and Age of Ultron received criticism for their overly ambitious plots and underwhelming portrayals of their titular villains. The Marvel Studios movie fared much better with audiences, but it too has been retroactively criticized for much of the same mistakes that X-Men: Apocalypse made, particularly when it came to Ultron's design and portrayal.

Age of Ultron is a much stronger movie, but it's pretty ironic that two movies based on Marvel Comics characters (and featuring a Quicksilver) had such similar plots when they were both released within one year of each other.

5. The Quicksilver scene is even better than the previous one

Whenever Quicksilver shows up, time stands still. Literally. You could say the same for audiences watching his scenes, because the moment Peter Maximoff appears on your screen, you just know to be prepared for an epic moment. And it always, always is.

Evan Peters' speedster made a huge impression with his humorous save of Charles and Magneto in Days of Future Past when he sped around the kitchen and disarmed the prison security (along with enjoying some food, having some fun, and just enjoying every moment). It was easily one of the best scenes in the film. What we don't speak about enough is that the exact same could be said for his Apocalypse scene too.

Bigger doesn't always mean better, but in this case it absolutely does. Upon seeing the Xavier's School For Gifted Youngsters on the precipice of a full-on explosion, Quicksilver raced into action, speeding his way around the whole mansion and saving everybody in a matter of seconds. He saved everyone, including most of the tenured X-Men (and still had enough time to save some fish, have some fun, and pass some judgment while he was at it).

Also, he did it all to "Sweet Dreams" by the Eurythmics. I mean come on; it doesn't get better than that.

4. Moira MacTaggert has nothing to do

After Moira MacTaggert was absent from X-Men: Days of Future Past, it was great to see her return in X-Men: Apocalypse. Rose Byrne did a great job in X-Men: First Class, so it was a bit of a shame that she didn't return in the sequel, but the decision to bring her back in the threequel was welcome. Or at least it should have been.

While Moira was pivotal in locating Apocalypse's tomb, the 2016 film didn't really have an idea what to do with her. Yes, she was Charles Xavier's long-lost love and there was certainly chemistry between the two, but the plot rendered her pretty lost pretty quickly. As she wasn't the same Moira we met in First Class (she had her memories wiped by Charles to protect her), she had much more of a background role because she couldn't get involved in the plot. And yes, I mean background, because she was there in almost all of the important scenes, standing in the background, asking questions, and looking a bit lost.

Moira entered this movie as an active part of it, but she spent most of it reacting to everything else that was happening. The character was limited because of the mind-wipe storyline, and that raised questions as to why she was even involved in the storyline in the first place. Both Moira and Rose Byrne deserved better than that, to be honest.

3. This Cyclops is better than the original trilogy's

X-Men: Apocalypse introduced us to the prequel series' version of Scott Summers, a.k.a. Cyclops. The bother of Alex Summers, a.k.a. Havok, he showed up in need of assistance whenever he began to exhibit those signature optic blasts. What he didn't expect was to become a fully-fledged superhero and stop the end of the world, but that's just a day in the life of an X-Man.

Portrayed by Tye Sheridan, this younger version of Scott was less self-assured and confident than his comic-book counterpart and he hadn't quite developed the leadership skills either. And yet, it was a far better portrayal of the character than the one we saw in the original trilogy of X-Men movies.

While James Marsters was great as the adult Cyclops, those three movies underutilized him at every opportunity. This Cyclops never got the chance to be the great leader of the X-Men that he is known for being in the comics, and he was often given little else to do than complain. But honestly, I'd complain too if that's all I had to do when I'm supposed to be one of the core X-Men characters.

The prequel movies had very little work to do in order to eclipse that version of Scott, so that was always going to happen provided there was some substance in Apocalypse's portrayal of the character. But it did much more than that, providing us with a nuanced, fun, and entertaining take on the character that felt far more worthy of his legendary comic book counterpart (even if he wasn't completely comic-accurate).

Tye Sheridan's performance remains the best live-action portrayal of Scott Summers so far. We really need to be having that conversation more often.

2. Oscar Isaac is thrilling as Apocalypse

X-Men: Apocalypse had many issues, including the design and adaptation of its titular antagonist himself. Oscar Isaac's performance as him, however, was not one of them.

Not only did he make the unusual character design work extremely well, he approached the role with a commanding performance; reserved in the beginning, but more forceful as the movie told its story. This went a long way in convincing audiences that Apocalypse was worthy of the reputation he boasted as the world's first mutant and why he should be feared.

The ease with which Apocalypse was able to convincingly manipulate those around him was among Isaac's finest performances in the movie and it's rather frustrating that the writers didn't focus on that side of the character more. When things escalated throughout the film, the villain became more and more stereotypical, but that didn't stop Isaac from throwing all of himself into the role to ensure that what he was doing was at least convincing; and it certainly was.

The fact that Oscar Isaac successfully managed to produce one of the X-Men's most chilling villains in spite of that unusual design and cliched dialogue is a testament to the strength of his performance. We shudder at the thought of what he could have done with a more comic-accurate adaptation of the character.

1. Michael Fassbender's Magneto was the best part of the movie

Say what you will about X-Men: Apocalypse but its portrayal of Magneto was spot-on. Michael Fassbender may just be the greatest aspect of Fox's X-Men prequel movies, as Magneto was easily one of the most compelling parts of them. We know his story; it's been replicated multiple times throughout these movies, and yet the nuance in his performance ensures that it always feels like it's the first time we're seeing it play out.

That was no different in the 2016 movie. The man who once wanted to destroy humanity somehow found happiness within it, starting a life with his beloved wife before the two had a daughter. When they were taken from him, he allowed his grief to turn him against mankind once more. Fassbender's performance as the struggling Erik Lehnsherr was nothing short of awesome and, even though we didn't want Magneto to fall back into his own ways, we understood his motivations.

If you took Magneto's arc out of X-Men: Apocalypse and placed it into another, better-received movie, it would hold up equally as well and I don't think enough people are willing to give it the credit it deserves for that. Granted, it could have used a little more development in certain places, but as a whole, this was undoubtedly the strongest character arc in the film. And, again, Fassbender's performance is just spectacular.