Apocalypse is Shaping Up to be the Worst-Reviewed X-Men Film

There is a moment in the '80s-set film X-Men: Apocalypse when teenage mutants are exiting a screening of the then-new Star Wars release Return of the Jedi. One of them notes that the third film in any trilogy is "always the worst." The line registers like a direct dig at the widely derided X-Men: The Last Stand, the third film in the earlier iteration of the X-Men franchise.

Yet while Apocalypse director Bryan Singer might be meta-heckling Brett Ratner's 2006 movie, let's hope he's also aware enough to be self-deprecating there: According to critics, his own Apocalypse -- yes, the third film in this X-Men prequel trilogy -- is even worse.

The latest X-film, which arrives late Thursday, is being deemed so mediocre by critics, it currently ranks below even Ratner's The Last Stand, which has a score of 58 on Metacritic; Singer's Apocalypse now sits at a Metascore of 51.

So where does X-Men: Apocalypse fit in among similar flicks this year? If early reviews are to be believed, it's not as controversial as Batman v Superman, but it doesn't measure up to Captain America: Civil War either.

The reviews may be decidedly mixed, but the critical reception registers as more disappointing because it suffers by comparison, landing right on the heels of the mostly lauded Civil War. The reviews also bear particularly disheartening news when you consider that every prior superhero film directed and/or written by Singer had received a "positive" aggregate score on Metacritic.

Barring an 11th-hour surge in positive reviews, Apocalypse will be the worst-reviewed X-team film ever -- ahead of only the solo installment X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Metascore: 40), the 2009 movie that was so misguided, it stitched Deadpool's merc-quick lips together (thus silencing the very snark that helped make this year's Deadpool such a huge hit).

So just where does this film -- and Singer's former sure-handed conducting -- go off the rails?

A phalanx of critics say that the world-domination plot seems awfully tired in 2016, particularly because for the third time this year in a major superhero film, the crimefighters are pressed into battle against each other on a massive scale. (And for comparison's sake: B v S has a Metascore of 44, and Civil War a 75.)

"Both Captain America: Civil War and X-Men: Apocalypse are superhero extravaganzas with severe traffic control problems, but while the former keeps things flowing reasonably smoothly, the latter film ... resembles a bumper-car nightmare," writes the Hollywood Reporter, which adds: "Mostly it just feels like a bloated if ambitious attempt to shuffle as many mutants and specially gifted characters as possible into a story of a resurrected god ready to take over the world."

The "traffic-control problem" crops up again and again in Apocalypse reviews, some of which note that numerous superhero films now groan beneath this weight of ever-growing casts as a means to sate elevating expectations.

"Apocalypse feels like a confused, kitchen-sink mess with a half dozen too many characters, a villain (played by Oscar Isaac) who amounts to a big blue nothing, and a narrative that's so choppy and poorly cut together that it feels like you're watching a flipbook instead of a movie," writes Entertainment Weekly.

And Variety writes: Although the X-Men ensembles are usually large, there are simply too many characters for the action-heavy 'Apocalypse' to properly juggle." Movie Nation critic Roger Moore, in lambasting the film, finds structural issues doomed by formula: "The epic effects, titanic struggles timed out every 30 minutes or so and ever-growing, ever-evolving lineup of characters of Apocalypse ... underline the exhausted ingredients of the formula these movies all use. So many movies, so many mutants, with filmmakers straining to find something new to do with them, and watching them try too hard is wearying. They're joyless technical exercises, as predictable as a video game."

Slant magazine places the blame squarely at Singer's feet: "The issue with X-Men: Apocalypse is that Bryan Singer suggests so many possible directions to go in and still chooses the least interesting one."

And Time Out New York blasts the writing: "The script is just nonsense, comprised entirely of sarcastic asides, portentous gobbledygook ("The dawn of a new age will rise!" cries Isaac) and insider references that only the faithful will appreciate."

Outlets like IndieWire -- while lauding Isaac's palpably "powerful" villain -- long for more character depth: "If only these characters were allowed to be as complex as the ideas they fight for, Apocalypse could have represented a new beginning for superhero cinema." And RogerEbert.com, in its one-star review, finds that fault especially grievous: "The greatest sin of X-Men: Apocalypse by far is how terribly it wastes some of the greatest modern actors."

The Village Voice review is noteworthy in its uncommonly high praise: "This film nimbly mixes narrative exuberance and emotional depth, flamboyant displays of power with quietly terrifying exchanges. It zips along, combining the highs and lows of a real comic book - all the feeling, color, and wonder, even some of the dopiness - with gloriously cinematic storytelling."

And the Chicago Tribune puts the film within the context of the superhero year so far. If Civil War is "the good one" and B v S is "the bad one," then Apocalypse is "the OK one."

"I've seen worse this year," writes the Tribune's Michael Phillips. "And better."

Priyanka Chopra? Gillian Anderson? No, a Woman Shouldn't Play James Bond

As happens periodically, a number of prominent actresses have recently said that they wouldn't be averse to playing James Bond should the iconic role be gender-flipped and proffered to them. Gillian Anderson approvingly tweeted a fan-made poster of her as the famous British spy. And Quantico star Priyanka Chopra told Complex that she had no interest in playing a Bond Girl, a role that has become as famous but rather more disposable than the spy himself, because "I wanna be Bond."

Anderson's and Chopra's comments are probably as much about a desire for a Bond-like role as they are an expression of a desire to don a Le Smoking tuxedo, strap on a Walther PPK and introduce themselves as Jane Bond. But predictably, their remarks have prompted the usual round of complaints that women can't play James Bond because of tradition, or, as Johnny Oleksinski put it in the New York Post, a Bond movie is "a frivolous action flick, not a gender studies course at Oberlin."

But as much as I am all for the idea that women should have equal shots at playing characters who have traditionally been played by men for no particularly good reason, and as loath as I am to agree with someone who defaults to canards that lazy in his writing, I fear I have to side with Oleksinski on this one. Women should get great spy roles. But they shouldn't play James Bond.

James Bond isn't required to be a man because only a man can carry off a credible action sequence, or only a man can romance a series of beautiful women, or only a man can credibly represent the British Empire, or any such similar nonsense. Women can do all of those things in real life, and we certainly should be permitted to do them on screen.

Instead, James Bond should be played by a man because the character is a study of masculinity in a particular context. Having a woman play the premier spy in the British secret service, a character who uses her sexuality to gain information and advantage without being judged for it, and who goes to great lengths in defence of her country, would be fascinating. A performance like that would challenge assumptions for what men and women can do. But it wouldn't explore the thing that James Bond movies are designed to explore: what's considered desirable and admirable in a man at any given moment.

Casting a black man, like David Oyelowo or Idris Elba, as James Bond would give the Bond franchise a new perspective on the intersection of masculinity, race, sexuality and power, a particularly potent combination given the legacy of British colonialism and Bond's place within it. Casting an Asian man would push back against the ways in which Hollywood has traditionally treated Asians and Asian-Americans as socially awkward, asexual nerds, especially at a moment when rising South Korean cultural influence is offering powerful alternatives to that model. Allowing Daniel Craig's James Bond to show both psychological and physical strain in Skyfall made that one of the most elegiac and thoughtful entries the franchise has offered up in years.

And beyond the question of what James Bond is for, I think it's worth asking serious questions about whether allowing women to occasionally step into roles that have previously been reserved for men is a significant step forward for gender equality in the entertainment industry. As much as it might be a fun change of pace to see the indomitable Anderson or a newcomer to the United States like Chopra in Bond's shoes, she'd be an exception rather than the rule. And it's the rule that matters.

If our goal is for Hollywood to create action-oriented jobs for women that will be available for decades to come, then we need franchises that are built around women. We need roles like Bond's, or Jack Ryan's, or Captain Kirk's that are designed to be occupied by a rotating series of women. Borrowing Bond's tux might be a fun fantasy. But real power means a role we don't have to give back to the men.

Here's What Johnny Depp Says About Divorce From Amber Heard

Johnny Depp hopes the dissolution of his "short marriage" to Amber Heard will be resolved quickly, says the superstar's representative.

Ms Heard, 30, filed for divorce earlier this week citing "irreconcilable differences" after the two were married for a little over a year.

"Given the brevity of this marriage and the most recent and tragic loss of his mother, Johnny will not respond to any of the salacious false stories, gossip, misinformation and lies about his personal life. Hopefully the dissolution of this short marriage will be resolved quickly." said the Mr Depp's representative in a statement.

Mr Depp married Ms heard in February 2015, after meeting on the set of 2011's The Rum Diary. They have no children together, but the actor has two children from a previous relationship with his girlfriend of 14 years, Vanessa Paradis.

Johnny Depp's Lawyer Responds to Amber Heard's Allegations

Johnny Depp's lawyer has responded to the actor's estranged wife Amber Heard's domestic abuse allegations, saying that her request for a temporary restraining order and financial support "appears to be in response to the negative media attention she received earlier this week."

Mr Depp has been ordered to stay away from Ms Heard after she claimed he hit her on her face with a cellphone, pulled her hair, struck her and screamed at her during a fight last weekend.

On Friday, Ms Heard was granted a temporary restraining order against Mr Depp until June 17.

Mr Depp's lawyer, Laura Wasser, then released a statement denying the 30-year-old's claims following the dramatic court hearing, reports mirror.co.uk.

In a written response to the court, Laura Wasser said that Ms Heard "is a successful model and actress who earns her own income and is capable of supporting herself."

She added that she understood Mr Depp would be out of the country working in Spain "for the next several weeks and will not return before June 7."

Mr Depp was ordered by a judge to stay 100 yards away from the actress, who has filed for divorce saying she lives "in fear" of her husband.

Ms Heard submitted a photograph to the court showing her bruised face, which she said was a result of the mobile phone incident, as she applied for a restraining order.