為什麼叉人這一部變得很糟糕

原因有很多，包括角色性格轉變生硬，說理和情感部份讓人齣戲，缺少叉人系列最激動人心的各種新鮮熱辣超能力（除了快銀），等等。
還有一個很重要的原因，看到一篇文章，寫得很好，摘錄下來。

原地址：http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/x-men-days-of-future-past/30636/11-questions-about-x-men-days-of-future-past-answered

This is something Marvel Studios understands. In building a world of multiple interconnected franchises, the events in one are reflected in another. Tony Stark didn't HAVE to have PTSD in Iron Man 3. He didn't HAVE to mention that he stopped an alien invasion. But the fact that he did? That's what convinces us these characters are able to grow and change. It's what gives the story weight. It invests us in the events that are happening.

And while this might seem like a nerdish desire for consistency, it's really not. It's the desire for the experience of watching a film to be as good as it can be. Bad continuity distracts you from what's actually happening on screen. It's not that it particularly matters how Professor X came back to life - it's that they didn't acknowledge it at all. If, in his first scene of DOFP, Professor X had said to Wolverine something like "I've died before, it's not necessarily the end" or "I've come back from worse", that would've been enough. Enough for the filmmakers to say "yes, we know he was dead, and now he isn't. But we needed him alive, so let's move on."

By NOT acknowledging the past, the filmmakers leave the audience preoccupied and confused. We're waiting for an explanation that isn't coming, instead of investing in the story we're watching. It sets a precedent that essentially stops filmmakers from engaging their audiences. Because if people are watching the X-Men films for the characters, and what happens to those characters doesn't stick from one movie to the next, it doesn't matter if we miss one.

And I'm no movie producer, but teaching audiences they can miss films? That seems like a bad idea to me.