That would make me so happy to see.

I just saw X-Men: Apocalypse, and I really, really liked it. If you were psyched to see this movie, don't like the middling reviews deter you. It's very much cut from the same cloth as the two previous film in this line: First Class and Days of Future Past. I think who like those movies will like this one. DoFP is the stronger film, so if you someone who is only mildly positive on that, you might feel negative about this one. The huge gap in critical consensus is puzzling; it overstates the difference in quality.

Pretty much across the board, I prefer the re-introduced versions of characters (Scott, Jean, Storm, Kurt) to their original trilogy versions. I think it does about as good a job balancing the large number of cast members as an Avengers movie. The only difference is that the MCU has gotten to roll out characters slowly over many movies. So while Civil War had the luxury of only having to add two new main characters (Spidey & Black Panther), Apocalypse has to intro several more. Some characters actually had more screen time than I anticipated, because some reviews were hyperbolic about them "barely appearing". The one exception was , who had so little to do that I'm not sure why that character was in movie. Every character has their moments, although like almost every blockbuster, it could probably be improved by trading some action for quieter character moments.

I always stay through the credits of movies (regardless of whether it's the type of movie that has post-credit scenes). However, if you someone who leaves earlier, the post-credit scene isn't particularly exciting.

Most of them don't come out here earlier, but a few do. Can't find rhyme nor reason for why.

I just saw the latest Independence Day: Resurgence Movie and it was average movie with a whiz-bang job on Special Effects and incredible action sequences, many of the stars from the original movie came back and redid their roles quite admirably minus Will Smith who was absence in this movie. Quite Loud and I was stunned that I managed to follow along quite easily despite the loudness of the film itself. It's somewhat a bomb in a sort of the way and I went with 9 friends of mine and 4 of them said it's bomb and the reminding 5 of us consider it okay and average at best. I wished they did a better job pacing it and the climax was rather wasn't all that cracked up to be. I would give this movie 2 to 2.5 stars at it's best.

The legend of Tarzan has been panned by a local critic who's usually into fantasy films, so my original enthusiasm has been severely downgraded... However, the godawful review at CBR makes me want to see it after all. Any film that is blamed for not being politically correct enough earns a few points in my book. The critic actually takes umbrage that the character played by Samuel L. Jackson wants the help of Lord Greystoke, "Africa's favourite son", to help him denounce the brutal exploitation of the Congo by King Leopold II of Belgium, knowing that in XIX century England the voice of a white nobleman will have more weight than that of a black man from America. Well, d-uh. I can't find any fault in that character's logic, and it has nothing to do with "white saviours". It's Tarzan we're talking about. Tarzan! Probably England's most famous member of the House of Lords in those days! And he grew up in Africa! What better advocate can one find? 

Many thanks for posting that, berk; I have complete faith in Greg's taste when it comes to anything Burroughs-related.