xXx: State of the Union

Discussion in 'Archive: The Amphitheatre' started by Chancellor_Ewok, Mar 22, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    I dunno- Rodriguez seems to be getting typecast as the badass chick in flicks, I think I'd rather see them go ina different direction and try someone else.
  2. Qui-Gon Zero Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 1999
    star 4
    Admittedly, my desire to see this flick is a complete 180 from my (non)desire to see the first xXx, and Ice Cube has a lot to do with it. Contrary to what a couple of posters have said, I think Ice Cube is a much more charismatic (and likeable, IMO) presence than Vin Diesel. Now, I'm not knocking Diesel; I've liked him in a couple of roles, but Cube possess an energetic, mischeiviously fun quality that I think would suit this type of movie like a glove.

    Another thing that I've noticed is that the trailer has done a great job of suggesting a much better movie than the first one. Of course, I'm not expecting a 4-star action extravaganza, but I'm starting to get the feeling that this just might come as a surprise. Dafoe's involvement is always a plus.

    I'm waiting for the reviews on this one, but what strikes me as personaly odd is that I'm actually rooting for a xXx flick to be a decent one.
  3. Gobi-1 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 22, 2002
    star 5
    I refused to see xXx because it was the anti-Bond and they bragged about how they were going to beat Bond at the box office, which did not happen by the way.

    However xXx: State of the Union looks appealing. It may be because I'm so desperate for a new Bond film I'll see anything remotely similar.
  4. JediTrilobite Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 17, 1999
    star 7
    Those movies still have a place in Hollywood, and all of the good ones are fast disapearing. All movies shouldn't be judged on the same standard. The standard is not that an action should have more "brains" as you put it, but if it can preform adequately in it's own field with "explosions". It's like judging a turtle on how fast it can fly, when it should be judged on a realistic standard. Si?


    Sorry, but the plot that can be gleaned from the trailer looks so flat and pretty bad that it's laughable that it made it past an agent.
  5. Soontir-Fel Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 18, 2001
    star 5
    *cough* Baby Geniesues 2 *cough*
  6. The2ndQuest Tri-Mod With a Mouth

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 10
    >>and they bragged about how they were going to beat Bond at the box office, which did not happen by the way.<<

    I dunno, xXx was ten times more enjoyable than Tommorow Never Dies, so it was beaten in at least one sense.

    Die Another Day did kick xXx's butt though ;)
  7. Tyranus_the_Hutt Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 14, 2004
    star 4
    Although I was moderately disappointed with the first installment of the "xXx" franchise, there isn't any reason as to why the sequel couldn't be entertaining. I guess that when you go into a film such as this, it is unreasonable to expect great artistry, and it is quite likely that you will need to have a willingness to suspend disbelief; the first film, which I felt to be bloated and silly, exceeded the typical parameters of B-grade "Saturday matinee serialized" action, and actually became something rather arch and grotesque, instead of the "slam-bang" extravaganza I think that it needed to be. In that respect, I feel that Rob Cohen's original picture failed, despite the contibutions of Vin Diesel (who, while he may not be a great actor, certainly possesses a fascinating screen presence) and Asia Argento (who, like Diesel, may or may not be a great performer, but is nonetheless an intoxicating fixture in contemporary motion pictures); as absurd a statement as this may appear to some, I actually preferred the Cohen-Diesel collaboration that was "The Fast and The Furious" - that film, I feel, by contrast represents the focused energy that was noticeably absent from "xXx".

    As for the sequel, I cannot be certain as to whether or not it will be a worthwhile film until being presented with the opportunity to actually view it. Ice Cube has consistently proven to be a reliable actor, Samuel L. Jackson is welcome in most films, and Willem Dafoe usually has fun chewing scenery in villainous roles (yes, I would include his work in "Speed 2"), but I am relatively uncertain as to the involvement of director Lee Tamahori; he is more than capable of handling this sort of material in an efficient manner, but I do miss the more intimate, personal qualities that he brought to "Once Were Warriors" - since that film, he has been more "hit-and-miss" with his various projects ("Along Came a Spider" was a clunky and implausible "by-the-numbers" thriller, despite the involvement of Morgan Freeman; "Mulholland Falls" was interesting and sort of effective in terms of its mood and some of the performances, but seemed too obviously derivative of Polanski's great "Chinatown", with none of that film's intricacy or brilliance; "The Edge", perhaps Tamahori's most involving post-"Warriors" film, was interesting because of the specificity of the performances by both Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin, not to mention a playful screenplay by David Mamet, who mischievously exploits the conventions of the "outdoor/survival" thriller; and "Die Another Day", which, despite its flashiness, felt stale and curiously uninvolving). So, the ingredients for a rousing piece of espionage action seems to be in place, and regardless of Cube's earnest statements concerning the fact that (I'm paraphrasing) "this film, unlike its predecessor, has a plot" (which is probably unlikely - not necessarily a basis for criticism, though), could be good, escapist entertainment. However, the operative word here is could.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.