Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

First Reviews For 'X-Men: Days Of Future Past' Weigh In On Mutant Mashup

by Kevin Jagernauth
May 12, 2014 5:59 PM
  • |
X-Men: Days of Future Past

It's a helluva gamble. For "X-Men: Days Of Future Past," director Bryan Singer and writer Simon Kinberg brought together two generations of mutants, tossed in time travel and hoped it would lead to a powerhouse result. And ... well, not everyone agrees on whether or not the roll of the dice paid off. Certainly on paper the idea is compelling—Double Magneto! Double Charles Xavier! Mystique rolling hard with Storm!—but making it work is a whole other question, and it seems it was a tricky concept to pull off.

The review floodgates have been opened (at least abroad) with the first notices on the film hitting the web. And as you might expect for a summer blockbuster, opinions are quite mixed on whether or not the "X-Men: First Class" follow-up gets it all right. So without further delay, here's what the critics are saying—and see for yourself when the movie opens on May 23rd:

The Independent: "The problem here is an absurdly convoluted screenplay that leaps back and forth in time in a manner that is both confusing and increasingly irritating."

The Telegraph: "The film squanders both of its casts, reeling from one fumbled set-piece to the next. It seems to have been constructed in a stupor, and you watch in a daze of future past."

Variety: "No skyscrapers blow up, no cities are leveled, and while the White House and a football stadium suffer some serious structural damage, the wholesale destruction of human civilization is kept to a refreshing minimum in 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' — just one of several respects in which this strikingly ambitious yet intimately scaled entertainment distinguishes itself from so much of its comicbook-movie kind."

THR: "While it's more dramatically diffuse than the reboot and lacks a definitive villain, the new film is shot through with a stirring reverence for the Marvel Comics characters and their universe…It's hard to imagine fanboys having too much to grumble about here, as Singer has pulled together an ambitious, suspenseful screen chapter that secures a future for the franchise while facilitating continued reinvention." 

Digital Spy: "Where 'Days of Future Past' ends up may not be entirely to everyone's tastes, but judged on its own terms this is a movie that delivers excellent performance and brains to compliment its bang-for-your-buck spectacle."

Geek: " 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' is up there with 'X-Men: First Class' as one of the best films in the X-Men series. It’s filled with action, it’s tense, and is surprisingly thoughtful at times. If you like X-Men — even if you hate what the movies became — you should see it."

Bleeding Cool: "I don’t want to go too much further for fear of spoiling the story but I will say that, despite some stand-out action set pieces and some brilliantly inventive details – I particularly liked the last word on Magneto’s possible involvement in the JFK assassination – what makes 'Days of Future Past' work is the big picture. Stakes are established that are consistent with the characters as we know them, and these are explored in ways that remain narratively engaging as they unfold. At two hours and ten minutes or so this is far from the longest superhero film in living memory but it’s not short and there was a real risk of it dragging. It certainly doesn’t, though."

Sci Fi Now: "Earnest and worthy aren’t qualities that tend to produce successful superhero movies. But somehow, Singer makes it work, neatly negotiating the inherit problems presented by time travel and the butterfly effect, and putting the X-verse on an interesting new path in the process. Days of Future Past might present as many questions as it answers – but for the first time in the franchise’s history, the future seems truly – and gloriously – uncertain."

Empire: "The best X-Men film since the second one, this sequel/ prequel/reboot trashes the ’70s with élan. Some of the massive cast struggle to register (there’s only a brief Storm), but what’s here is all good. We want 'X-Men: Apocalypse,' now."

  • |

More: X-Men: Days of Future Past, Reviews, Review

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    


  • Taylor | May 14, 2014 12:08 PMReply

    The fact that you think the early reviews are "quite mixed" is hilarious. 94% on RT / 100% for "Top Critics" and 9.3 on IMDB sounds overwhelmingly positive to me, but I'm no expert.

  • Trevor | May 13, 2014 11:16 AMReply

    I hate to admit it, but it looks like reviews will only get more and more mixed. Seems that critics are not happy with the intertwining storylines and the mass amount of characters. I would love to see the movie stay in the 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, but realistically I think the movies going to end up in the lower 70% on Rotten Tomatoes.

  • CJJ | May 13, 2014 1:44 PM

    Grab a hold of your testicles and man up Trevor. There have been 14 reviews on RT and 13 are positive.

  • Rachele | May 13, 2014 8:27 AMReply

    As of May 13 a.m., 91% positive on rotten tomatoes. "Mixed" only in the sense that a small minority disliked it. I think the headline needs to be updated.

  • vrm | May 12, 2014 11:22 PMReply

    86%, yet, on rotten tomatoes, most of the critics are phrasing the movie positively.

    Are The Independent and The Thelegraph more reputable than Digital Spy, Variety or The Hollywood Reporter when it comes to reviewing blockbuster movies? I don't think so.

    I don't think it's mixed, at least until now. Sorry, I know of how many people must be just dying to see this movie failing, but I don't think this is going to happen this time around :(

  • BeyondThePolice | May 13, 2014 3:11 AM

    I can't remember the Independent or the Telegraph EVER giving more than four stars to ANY blockbuster. I think they feel they're obliged to look down upon blockbusters.

  • Maria | May 12, 2014 9:37 PMReply

    I'm confused… the first tweets from the press screening were over the top thrilled with the film.. and what about Variety? HWR? SD? which all gave it a great review.. why is this article so slanted in saying it's mixed? Are you a frustrated critic who really wanted to be an artist but do not have enough compassion to really create something? I think so… so sit around and critic.. no one really listens to critics anyway, they are the cockroaches of the art/movie/theatre world.

  • Michele | May 12, 2014 8:06 PMReply

    The Independent and The Telegraph disliked it. But, in addition to the favorable reviews you have listed here, there are excellent reviews from Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Screen Daily and likely some others that I haven't seen yet. I think "mixed" is premature--it's looking very positive.

  • Owsler | May 12, 2014 6:27 PMReply

    5/7 of the reviews are positive, and you say mixed?

  • Franka | May 12, 2014 9:20 PM

    Reputable sources over non reputable sources.

  • Whooler | May 12, 2014 6:33 PM

    Well, adults vs. nerd ratio, right? That's a pretty disparate group of people and adults add up to what, 2-3 nerds at least?

  • m | May 12, 2014 6:12 PMReply


  • John | May 13, 2014 2:51 PM

    Woah there trick

  • mms | May 12, 2014 7:48 PM

    Oh keep a lid on it, would you? How about grabbing the pitch fork while you're at it and scramble to the open public place, like the rest of the herd, where the witches are burned? These accusations scream of cash grap as perfectly timed to the imminent release of the film. What the hell do we even know about Mr. Singer's are actions other than what the sensation-happy and distorting media brings along? Sheep..

  • Christian | May 12, 2014 6:05 PMReply

    It looked incredibly overstuffed and fanboy-pandering. These films have officially entered Star Trek territory for me - they're just too nerdy with weird looking aliens interacting with real human beings as if it's perfectly normal. I saw X-Men 2 in theaters in 2003 as a 10 years old, but now I've had enough of this crap. The Usual Suspects is a masterpiece, but Singer is becoming a hack.

  • CJJ | May 13, 2014 1:47 PM

    Masterpiece? That's ridiculous, it's pretty good and has a great ending but it's not a great film, nowhere near 'fantastic' and miles away from being a masterpiece.

  • steve | May 13, 2014 1:27 PM

    Dude I have been saying the same thing as you. Everything but Usual Suspects was "meh" at best. I can't even watch X-Men 2. Nightcrawler's intro was awesome but the movie's pacing is really off. And it's all about Wolverine and Professor X.

  • KT | May 12, 2014 6:47 PM

    "The major difference is that their costumes are different, right?"

    Um, no. The list of differences is llllooooonnnnnnggg and somewhat infuriating. This film franchise doesn't amount to much, especially considering this film erases 90% of it for the sake of correcting what "professionals" didn't get right to begin with.

  • Christian | May 12, 2014 6:29 PM

    I grew up with the Spider-Man animated series from the 90s and X-Men featured in a couple of episodes. The major difference is that their costumes are different, right? Wolverine has no mask in the films.

  • KT | May 12, 2014 6:15 PM


    You must not be a X-Men fan because this film franchise has been a nightmare and more-or-less a middle finger to X-Men/comic-book fans.

Email Updates