Independence Day (1996) & Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

It’s 20 years later, and the aliens are back and looking to start another fight. I’ve always been a fan of ID4 because it left a lasting impression on me. I enjoyed it immensely when I first saw it as a wee lad. It’s fun, cheesy, and a good summer popcorn flick. I remember being ecstatic when my folks picked it up on VHS from Walmart many years ago when they were selling off all of their VHS tapes. For about a decade or so it sat around collecting dust, that is until I decided to find it, dust it off, and pop it in my newly acquired VCR for a re-watch, because it helps to revisit the first before you see the new one, right?

Independence Day (1996)

It’s the prototypical summer blockbuster/popcorn flick that’s more focused on spectacle than substance, but damn is it entertaining. Jeff Goldblum, Bill Pullman, and Will Smith are all great and charismatic in their respective roles. Will Smith must have had a thing for aliens back in the mid-90’s, because he starred in Men in Black just a year later. Brent Spiner is great in his small role too as the geeky Dr. Okun. Also, who can forget Judd Hirsch and Randy Quaid? The effects were great for the time and have held up mostly well 20 years later (some of the CGI looks a little cheesy, but nothing awful). The aliens themselves look really cool too. As for the story, it’s not particularly great and there are plot holes galore and elements feel contrived, but the fun factor kind of makes you overlook them. There’s a lot of cheesy dialogue too, but damn if Pullman’s empowering speech doesn’t get you excited and pumped. Overall, it’s just a fun alien invasion flick. If you like 50’s sci-fi films, you’ll more than likely enjoy this one. Also, it wouldn’t make for a bad double bill with Tim Burton’s purposely cheesy Mars Attacks!, which was released the same year.

Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

The aliens are back for round two, and it’s mostly unimpressive and cheesy as hell (like that cheap spray cheese you buy in the can, not the higher quality stuff). Like with its predecessor, it’s more focused on spectacle, and the story suffers because of it. Also, was there a need for so many characters? There’s nothing wrong with introducing a few new faces, but at least develop them. Jeff Goldblum and Brent Spiner return and give solid performances, as does Bill Pullman. Will Smith’s presence as Captain Stephen Hiller is missed, and Jessie Usher doesn’t quite step up to the plate as his stepson, Dylan Dubrow-Hiller. He lacks the charisma of Smith, but to be fair, matching the charisma of Smith is no easy feat. Maika Monroe is good as Patricia Whitmore, but why/how Mae Whitman didn’t return is a bit of a head scratcher. Also, this film suffers from the “let’s set up future sequels” formula by including some contrived story and plot elements. There’s absolutely no subtly. Are the effects good at least? Yeah, they’re good, but they lack the “wow” factor like the effects in the first one. We as filmgoers have grown accustomed to seeing overblown CGI summer blockbusters, so it’s nothing special anymore. Is it entertaining at least? Of course, but it lacks the charm of its predecessor. If you liked the first one you’ll probably enjoy this one, but don’t expect it to leave a lasting impression, because it won’t.

What Went Wrong With X-Men: Apocalypse?

So far, 2016 has proven to be both a great and disappointing year for superhero films. Four of the six 2016 superhero films have already had a theatrical release, and honestly, only Deadpool and Captain America: Civil War were great. The other two, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and X-Men: Apocalypse were underwhelming and lacking. As a huge fan of Batman, Superman, and the X-Men, it’s a huge disappointment to me that these films weren’t better. They certainly had potential, but it was squandered. As a summer blockbuster film for the casual moviegoer, X-Men: Apocalypse is sure to entertain, but for a fan of the comics, it sucks and is sure to disappoint. What exactly went wrong with X-Men: Apocalypse? Well, read on and find out, but only if you’ve seen the film, because there are a butt ton of spoilers ahead!

The main problem that needs to be addressed is the fact that the film didn’t even live up to the “Apocalypse” part of its title. Yes, the mutant Apocalypse is in the film, but does he ever feel like a genuine threat? The answer is: not really. The pre-credits scene set in ancient Egypt does a solid and respectable job of setting him up, but it’s all downhill from there. He just rambles on about how he wants to take over the world and how he despises humanity. Makes for a complex and compelling villain, right? We’ve never seen a villain with motivations like that, right? Ugh, what a waste of Oscar Isaac. To be fair he does a good job given what little he has to work with, but he’s one of the best actors currently working. Almost anyone else could’ve played such a generic and lazily written villain. Also, it’s hard to take Apocalypse seriously when he looks like a lousy Power Rangers villain. If they had made Apocalypse more layered and complex, he would’ve made for a much better villain, and the film would’ve been much better because of it.



In addition to Apocalypse himself being underwhelming, the Four Horsemen are also underwhelming, with the exception of Magneto and arguably Storm. Psylocke and Angel are completely wasted because they’re given no development. Olivia Munn is gorgeous as Psylocke and she looks like Psylocke from the comics, but she only has ten lines of dialogue max. Also, after the climatic battle, she just walks off the screen and has that “screw this” look on her face, which is highly appropriate. As for Angel, we see how he lost his wing and Apocalypse repairs it for him, but once he joins up, he doesn’t do much else. He’s supposedly killed in the third act climatic fight, but ultimately, his fate is left up in the air. Essentially, Angel and Psylocke are just lackeys of Apocalypse. As for Storm, she’s a little more developed, but it felt like she was too easily convinced to join Apocalypse. Also, you know she’s going to have a change of heart anyway given how she’s been portrayed in the franchise before, so ultimately it doesn’t feel genuine. Magneto is really the only Horseman who’s turn feels genuine because of what happens to him and what we know about his character. He settles down and starts a family, but after he’s betrayed and his family his killed, he loses trust and faith in humanity once again, so he becomes one of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. However, his turn at the end is predictable because of the deep-rooted love and respect he has for both Mystique and Professor X. If the other Horsemen had been more fleshed out and developed, it also would’ve made for a better film.

Another problem with the film was the script and the plot holes, or how I like to call them; “How the hell does this make any sense?” The glaring problem with this new X-Men timeline is that nobody ages! They all look the same as they did in First Class, which was set in the 60’s. This film is set the 80’s. Are these mutants doing yoga in their free time or something? Also, what the hell’s up with Mystique? She’s great as a character, but in this new timeline, her loyalty is so back and forth between Charles and Erik. At the end of the film, her loyalty is with Charles once again, but for how long? As for Havok, did he really serve any purpose in the film? Sure, he’s the older brother of Scott Summers (Cyclops), but his death in the film is ultimately meaningless. Scott mourns over him for only one scene and then he forgets about him. As for the Wolverine as Weapon X bit, it’s an awesome scene and is the kind of the Wolverine we need to see more of the screen, but it makes no sense for him to be in the film. At the end of Days of Future Past, we clearly see that Mystique has impersonated Stryker, which gives us the fair assumption that Wolverine hasn’t fallen into the wrong hands after he was fished out of the river. However, Stryker still managed to capture Wolverine and experiment on him somehow. It’s obvious the makers (not to mention the studio) felt obligated to have Wolverine in there just because it’s an X-Men film, so they just shoehorned him in. Great sequence, but it was unnecessary and it felt forced. Also, what the hell happened with all of those nuclear weapons that Apocalypse had fired off? Are they just floating around aimlessly in space, or did they get stuck orbiting the Earth? It was just glossed over and not brought up at the end. As for the romance between Charles and Moira, it’s laughably bad. He’s more creepy in his attempts to woe her than charming. And lastly, the whole subplot with Magneto being Quicksilver’s father falls flat on its ass. There are a few moments of dialogue here and there that touch upon it, and it pays good lip service to the comics, but it just doesn’t go anywhere. It ends up just being played for laughs, and the end Quicksilver’s just like, “Eh, no big deal.” Talk about lazy writing. With a more focused script, it would’ve been a better and slightly more entertaining film.

As a whole, X-Men: Apocalypse is a hollow and underwhelming film, but with some good elements that deserve a mention. The acting is solid, especially from the actors playing the younger versions of the popular X-Men characters, and Michael Fassbender. He’s made the role of Magneto his own just like Hugh Jackman has done with Wolverine. The Quicksilver scene at the Xavier mansion is awesome, and Evan Peters kills it in the role once again. Also, the climatic fight is fun enough, but the end result is predictable. Charles going into the mind of Apocalypse was a nice touch, though. Although it wasn’t an overstuffed, incomprehensible mess like Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice was, it’ll leave you highly disappointed if you’re a fan of the comics and the franchise as a whole. Fox seemed to have corrected the course with First Class and Days of Future Past, but now they’re making the same mistakes again. Mutant lives matter too!