Good but the inconsistencies are too distracting

Rating: 7/10 (25 September 2014)

My general summary is that this is a 'good' film with lots of action, 'some' great acting and is overall well worth watching.
Unfortunately, I can't give this more than a 7 (much as I would like to as I love X-Men) because for me, this was as good/disappointing as the Breaking Bad finale.
The good:
Obviously the 'real' leads: James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. Gripping acting from them as per usual. I liked the Sentinels. And Peter Dinklage.
That's about it.
The bad:
I'm not sure there's any point in listing the plot holes and inconsistencies because I'm not very observant so I'm sure people will spot way more than I did and the internet has lots of hilarious pages dedicated to finding the faults. Also, I don't usually care about plot holes but inconsistencies really wind me up because it's so lazy. Decide if you're following the comics or not. If not, make damn sure you follow the events of the previous films. You have to reckon that even if the writers had never heard of X-Men before, 'someone' at some point would have seen the script and gone "noooo, that can't happen because..." but no. All the way through this film I was rolling my eyes and groaning and shouting and asking "HOW??", "WHY??" and the millions of inconsistencies kept taking me out of the film and ruined the experience for me (hence the 7).
Jennifer Lawrence. I was never on the bandwagon and I don't hate her either so (that proves?!) this criticism is genuinely an honest opinion: really bad casting. The original Mystique (Rebecca Romijn) moved like a serpent (I mean that in a good way) and had a low sultry voice but Jennifer just looks and sounds like a sulky teenager in most of her scenes. James and Michael are so convincing in part because they nail the accents. Jennifer doesn't even attempt to change her accent or voice. The first time she played Mystique I could overlook it because she was just playing 'the kid version' and wasn't the real Mystique in my eyes but now that she's played her twice, I feel like they want us to think of her as much as being the real Mystique as we do of James and Michael being the real Professor and Eric...but that won't happen until Jennifer drastically improves her acting. She needs to work on her voice and body language.
The choreography and costumes: sorry to pick on Jennifer, this is probably wardrobe's fault but maybe the actress requested it? She is blatantly wearing a leotard! Like, 'blatantly'!!! If you're going to play such a proud and distinguished character, you should do it properly and just have the body paint. Isn't she supposed to be naked? i.e. refusing to disguise herself in any way? I've never read the comics but Jennifer's Mystique looks so fake and again, it's distracting. Instead of going for a big name, why not go for an actress who's willing to play the part right?
Regarding the choreography throughout the film: There were loads of fight scenes that felt rushed or unfinished or poorly edited...not sure which. Like the sound effects weren't properly added. They weren't always convincing.
Why can Kitty Pryde (ridiculous name) send people back in time?? How did the Professor get his body back?? Why is it suddenly acceptable to provide important plot points in DVD commentary? NO, NO, NO! Plot points essential to the development of a story MUST be provided in the film otherwise your film is SH*T!!
Tangent: Someone online explained the theory i.e. 'not spoiler' that the Professor got his body back by using the paraplegic's who happened to be his identical twin brother (I don't remember them being identical from the news story in the other film but whatever) and that his twin was in a coma because the Professor's psychic abilities overwhelmed his brother's mind in the womb. Two things wrong with that explanation: 1- The Professor states in this film that he only developed his powers at around 9(ish). A foetus would almost certainly not have reached puberty and would therefore not have been exhibiting any mutant abilities. 2- Even if there was some weird 'developing-foetus glitch' and the Professor did in fact manage to exhibit mutant abilities so powerful it knocked his twin into a coma: 2b- Why has his twin been kept on life support for the last 60 years or so since birth?? 2c- Would that even happen in real life?? 2d- Given that his twin also has to have the exact same abilities otherwise the Professor would now be in a non-mutant body without powers, why would his twin be affected if he has the same genetics and same psychic abilities? I suppose it's possible he just wasn't having a developing-foetus glitch that day like his brother. Unfortunate for him.
The point is that if you take over a project and disagree with the death of someone, bring them back in a way that makes sense and also: ACTUALLY EXPLAIN IT !!
The ending was great on the one hand because of a reason I can't say but disappointing because it reminded me of the happily ever after of Breaking Bad. Also: that's how you could have brought the Professor back. But whatever.
If it wasn't for James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender, I would have given this a 6. Just FYI.
7/10
(I have to ask: why couldn't Bobby/Iceman fly them all away on his ice skateboard whilst Logan was off fixing the past? Or at least just Kitty and Logan?)