X-Men 3 Discussion Thread

She failed to have even one.

 

Because the vast majority of people, be it movie goeers or comic readers, are stupid.

And there is nothing else playing.

 

I enjoyed it. Was it perfect? Not at all! There are many flaws, Halle's increased role, the Phoenix storyline, etc etc. But I didn't expect perfection! I hoped for an enjoyable film and I got that. And Ian GETS Magneto, he played him perfectly. Not perfect, but it didn't have to be. Overall, I'm happy with the state of the franchise.

 

Lurking_Around, I enjoyed the film and I've barely read the comics. I even complained when my brothers watched the cartoon when I was little. So even though I know a bit about the characters and love the movies, I'm hardley what you could call a fangirl.

Hey, as someone who likes Gambit and is a Tokien fan, I resent that comment. I really wanted to see Gambit in this film (he was actually gonna be y'know, but Josh Holloway who they asked to play him didn't want to because he thought Gambit was too much like Sawyer in LOST) and come on, most people can agree that it would be cool.

And as for Tom Bombadil, not ALL of us think they should have had him in the film and some of us are not rabid.

 

I really wanted to see Gambit in this film (he was actually gonna be y'know, but Josh Holloway who they asked to play him didn't want to because he thought Gambit was too much like Sawyer in LOST) and come on, most people can agree that it would be cool.

Wow, thanks for informing me that the movie could have been worse than it already was.



Bah!

 

I didn't enjoy this movie, and that's probably partly my fault for hyping it up when I know it couldn't have been better than x2, what with all the rushed production. There are a few brilliant scenes however, but they only make me depressed when I think the entire movie could have been like that, if only it had been given some room to breathe. Nothing could save this movie from its runtime, not even the fantastic battles, or great performances from Ian and Famke. There's just no time to digest anything - most notably no time to mourn (or even care for) Cyclops, the supposed leader of the X-men.

The movie to me feels like a skeleton frame that hasn't been fleshed out. It wasn't a bad movie, though, I'll admit. Come to think of it, they actually did an okay job considering the amount of time they had to pull it off.

There is one thing, however, that leaves me scratching my head - Psylocke. Why oh why must they include a popular character like her in the film, give her two lines, and then have her demolecularised by Phoenix? Why include her in the movie at all?

 

While I haven't seen X3 yet, I found myself leaning towards Magneto's side in the first two films. I don't know if it's Ian's charm or the fact that The Brotherhood may actually have a purposeful cause that I can sympathize with. Magneto is simply trying to break his supeiror race out of the bondage of opprression in which they have suffered since the begingging of their existence. From what I hear about X3, Magneto induces even more sympathy into his cause. The creation of the cure, the capture of Mystique and ultimatley tampering with her genetic structure until she is more like the way humans want everybody to be. Hell, the U.S. went to war with less of a threat against it so Magneto isn't really the "Bad Guy." He's just the different point of view.

And my two favorite X-Men characters are Beast and Angel. I also think Bobby is preety cool. But I do not consider them "Fanboy" characters. The three of them were in the original comic, they should of been in the trilogy from the start. Fanboy characters would have been Wolverine, Rogue, Storm, Colossuss, and Kitty Pryde. I hardly consider the orignal cast to be Fanboy characters, but that's just my 2 cents.

 

It's funny that you say that considering that there were aliens in the comics who were trying to stop the Dark Phoneix as well as the X-men trying to stop her.

 

I think he knew that.

This really felt to me like it was missing half the movie. I won't say I didn't enjoy it, because I did. I just wish we could have got some character development out of Cyclops instead of Storm screen time.

 

the moving of the Golden Gate Bridge was my favorite scene in the movie. music went along very well with it and was visually amazing

 

That's why I said it could ahve been worse if they included ALIENS!11! just like in the comics. Thankfully, X-3 at the very least kept the down to earth tone that Singer adapted since the first film. It's too bad the new director forgot to tell a story that made sense.

The three of them were in the original comic, they should of been in the trilogy from the start

Typical fanboy argument. Oh well, enjoy the brief two-second cameo of the wing guy (Angel? Such a tough name! ).

Bah, and bah again!

"OMG, he's flying!11!"

 

Despite its abundant pyrotechnics, and a general emphasis on kinetic activity, "X-Men: The Last Stand" is a surprising muted superhero picture - clunky and impersonal, filled with dubious special effects and lacking the sort of vigorous, slam-bang energy that made its predecessors so endearing. That this new installment manages to invoke some intriguing socio-political issues and usher them neatly into the story is of course to its credit, but such enrichment seems to have come at the expense of character depth and humanity.

One of the problems with the "X-Men" movie franchise is that it contains so many characters (a number that has only increased exponentially as this current storyline has progressed) that it becomes nearly impossible to impart each of the myriad ancillary figures with the degree of presence and emotional depth that we might require as an audience in order to invest emotionally in the narrative. "X-Men: The Last Stand" introduces us to characters that are new to the film series, such as Beast, Kitty Pryde, Juggernaut, Angel, and Leech, a young boy who is being held in containment on Alcatraz, because his body produces an antibody that can be used to "cure" mutancy; their lack of fullness means that good actors like Kelsey Grammar, Ellen Page (who was so chillingly effective in David Slade?s supremely unsettling "Hard Candy"), Vinnie Jones, Ben Foster (sporting an aquiline handsomeness), and Cameron Bright (who is fast becoming one of the most ubiquitous child performers this side of Dakota Fanning) are either reduced to spouting rote pontification (Grammar), sidelined for most of the film, save for the action sequences (Jones), or so superficially addressed as to become barely discernable supporting players (the respective sub-plots featuring Page, Foster, and Bright are undercooked to such an extent that it becomes difficult to care for their predicaments).

Even many of the returning characters, including Anna Paquin?s Rogue, Shawn Ashmore?s Iceman, Aaron Stanford?s Pyro, James Marsden?s Cyclops, and Rebecca Romijn?s Mystique, are given almost negligible screen time, as they orbit around the story?s most salient dramatic figures, which include Hugh Jackman?s Wolverine, Halle Berry?s Storm, Famke Janssen?s Jean Grey/Phoenix, Patrick Stewart?s Xavier, and Sir Ian McKellen?s Magneto; still, Janssen and Berry, both of whom are talented actors, seem to occupy negative space, rather than truly inhabiting their characters ? indeed, the film?s lack of psychological dimension in this regard seriously impedes its ability to function on a more immediate emotional plane. Thankfully, however, Jackman continues to project a fierce intensity that breathes a measure of conviction into his Wolverine, while esteemed British thespians Stewart and McKellen are afforded numerous opportunities to chew scenery with their portentous orations.

The first "X-Men" picture, directed in 2000 by Brian Singer, spent so much time embellishing its characters and setting up interpersonal conflicts, that its payoff, as it were, felt perfunctory and underwhelming; its sequel, "X2," did a marginally better job of negotiating the intricacies of its narrative and interpersonal details, creating an equilibrium of sorts between the story?s epic and intimate qualities ? needless to say, that yielded a rather more satisfying experience. "The Last Stand," directed by Brett Ratner, differs somewhat from its predecessors in that it has almost no time for characterization, plunging immediately into some moderately engaging socio-political murkiness that, like the recent "V for Vendetta," it ultimately circumvents in favor of large-scale action scenes.

I must confess that I did in fact enjoy some of this ? more than I expected, but alas, not as much as I would have liked. "The Last Stand" is passable escapist fare, yes, but it lacks the emotional presence of more ambitious superhero films such as "Spider-Man 2," "Batman Begins," and "Superman II," and is more or less devoid of the transporting visceral lift provided by Richard Do

 

Just FYI kitty was in both of the other films, but not in so large a role.

 

Two different actresses too.

 

Actually, three.

 

So instead of bothering to be faithful to the comics, they included an offhand (and bad) reference to some Internet joke?

 

Oh, sorry, like the first two films were faithful to the comics.

 

Good review, Tyranus the Hutt.

 

If I want cheese, I'll stick with SOAP

 

About half the audience at my showing of X-Men cheered out loud at the SOAP trailer, including myself.

 

My theater went crazy for that trailer too - IMHO it was quite brilliant marketing.

Then again, my audience also went nuts for the Juggernaut line too...

 

Despite its abundant pyrotechnics, and a general emphasis on kinetic activity, "X-Men: The Last Stand" is a surprising muted superhero picture - clunky and impersonal, filled with dubious special effects and lacking the sort of vigorous, slam-bang energy that made its predecessors so endearing.

Amen!

still, Janssen and Berry, both of whom are talented actors, seem to occupy negative space, rather than truly inhabiting their characters

Meh, Janssen at her best is mere eye-candy. Still, her Jean Grey was always tolerable, and she had nice chemistry with Jackman. Her Phoenix persona sadly was just her making funny faces. Berry is overrated, and her Storm was Singer's biggest mistake. He could have corrected this in X-2, alas he did not (is it his fault, or studio execs? *shrug*).

Coincidentally, both are ex-Bond girls in the Brosnan era.

while esteemed British thespians Stewart and McKellen are afforded numerous opportunities to chew scenery with their portentous orations

In a movie as crappy as X-3, any chewing of scenery is a breath of fresh air.

"The Last Stand," directed by Brett Ratner, differs somewhat from its predecessors in that it has almost no time for characterization, plunging immediately into some moderately engaging socio-political murkiness that, like the recent "V for Vendetta," it ultimately circumvents in favor of large-scale action scenes.

Exactly, good comparison with 'V for Vendetta'. It sets up some nice political stuff and then just abandoned it for some slam-bang action scenes. But, in the case of 'V', I thought the action scenes had some elegance to it. The final battle of X-3 was a mess, with tactics that didn't make sense and so many random characters, it became annoying.

I'd say 'V' was marginally better than 'X-3', though that's not saying much, eh?

 

Just FYI kitty was in both of the other films, but not in so large a role.

Shows you what I know. In all honesty, I haven?t revisited either of the first two "X-Men" pictures since their initial theatrical exhibitions; perhaps it would have been wise for me to have screened both films prior to watching "The Last Stand."

Good review, Tyranus the Hutt.

Thanks for the compliment, Boba_Phat.

Meh, Janssen at her best is mere eye-candy.

Perhaps I employed the term 'good actress' a little too liberally, but nevertheless I will defend Ms. Janssen, who at the very least has been able to project a modicum of screen presence in several other films, including "Made," "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole," "Lord of Illusions," and was probably the best thing in "City of Industry" (I realize that isn?t saying very much). Whether or not Janssen is capable of communicating great emotional depth on-screen is as of yet unknown; she hasn?t been afforded an opportunity to really exhibit the sort of psychological dimension and complexity that is frequently associated with the most proficient actors.

Still, her Jean Grey was always tolerable, and she had nice chemistry with Jackman.

Yes, I agree with you.

Her Phoenix persona sadly was just her making funny faces.

True, but in all honesty, I don?t know that any actress would have been able to do much with the role, especially given the limitations of the material.

Berry is overrated, and her Storm was Singer's biggest mistake. He could have corrected this in X-2, alas he did not (is it his fault, or studio execs? *shrug*).

I like Berry as an actress, but she is given almost nothing to do in the film; even Hugh Jackman, who is usually dependable in this sort of picture (he managed to breathe some life into the otherwise dreary "Van Helsing," although not enough to redeem its flaws, which were considerable), is given relatively little time to do anything with his characterization. While I recognize that no one attends an "X-Men" film for insight into human nature, it would have been nice to at least have a bit more dimension to some of the key figures in the story, but as I mentioned, the movie has no time for exposition of any sort.

Coincidentally, both are ex-Bond girls in the Brosnan era.

Heh. Good call.

In a movie as crappy as X-3, any chewing of scenery is a breath of fresh air.

While I didn?t dislike "The Last Stand" as much as you did, I wouldn?t be eager to give it an endorsement of any sort. I did, however, enjoy the performances of Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart who, unlike certain other members of the cast, seemed to recognize exactly what sort of a movie they were in.

Exactly, good comparison with 'V for Vendetta'. It sets up some nice political stuff and then just abandoned it for some slam-bang action scenes.

Yes, very true; one of the problems with both of these films is that the action scenes, ironically, are not nearly as exciting as the ideas that the movies conjure in the first place. Although I like slam-bang kinetic activity as much as the next person, I sometimes find that too much of that sort of thing becomes not only repetitive, but oppressive (I basically enjoyed "M:I:III," for example, but I?d kind of had enough of the relentless action sequences as the film entered its final act); "The Last Stand" is not nearly as numbing as "M:I:III" (at least not in the same way), but the fact that it bothers to incorporate some nascent socio-political ideas into its narrative, and then abandon them mid-stream in favor of a series of spectacularly unimaginative set piece action sequences, is kind of depressing. At least with "M:I:III," there is no pretense; it delivers exactly what it advertises, skillfully and (more or less) without interference. In other words, it gets the job done; while I can?t applaud its artistry, I do admire its craft. "The Last Stand," however, contained a wealth of intriguing possib

 

Some of you are thinking way, waaaaaaaaay too hard about this movie. It was a blast. Learn to simply have fun with a movie every now and then.

Oh, and the Dark Phoenix saga, as it was in the comics? Incredibly dumb and would make for terrible cinema. Ratner's version was much better.