Official X-Men: The Last Stand Review Thread [SPOILERS!]

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

With 10 being the best and 1 being the worst, how would you rate X-Men: The Last Stand?

10
4
3%
9
4
3%
8
20
17%
7
27
23%
6
18
16%
5
12
10%
4
9
8%
3
7
6%
2
3
3%
1
5
4%
I will not be seeing this/I am waiting for DVD
6
5%
 
Total votes : 115

Postby Bob Samonkey on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:11 pm

wheredidigo111 wrote:
Adam Balm wrote:
wheredidigo111 wrote:1st of all I'm going to stop talking. Do to the fact that it's going nowhere with you guy. But I do have one last thing to say. Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Batman Forever was a big disappoint to fans but put more money in to it. And because of that Hollywood saids lets stop listening to the Bat-fans. But the Bat-fans keep going to Batman Forever and hated anyone who hated the film. And what did they get for there haerd work. I think well all know what it was. It was that pice of crap called Batman & Robin. Thanck to the fans Joel Schumacher stayed on and the Bat-fans got one of the worst movie in history. One who does not learn from ones past is BOOMED to repeat it. That's all I have to say.


This post makes no sents to me.


I'm sorry. I sould have said like Batman Forever is to X-men the Last Stand. And may Batman & Robin maybe is going be like X4. And the fact that this has happen befor.


They are going to have nipples on their suits??!? :shock:
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby Adam Balm on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:11 pm

oic kthx.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby MasterWhedon on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:16 pm

Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:I love you guys but this is why we have no new friends...

WE need to figure out a way to ease them in better. They come from reading the talkbacks and they are all riled up expecting it to be like that in here too. There should be a timeframe where all they can do is read and not post. Then they get the vibe and then every one can be mellow and proper

You have a valid point, Bob, but remember: YOU are one of our "new," post-flood friends and no one has ever had a problem with the way you've conducted yourself.

I'm down with people posting from word one, as long as they gel with the spirit of the Zone. I'm even fine with people getting heated once in a while, as we all do, but only if their posts refrain from a certain superiority.

I'm not trying to make a scapegoat of wheredidigo111, because I think he has a respectable argument in there, but I'm not a fan of how he's presented it and, by extension, himself.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Adam Balm on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:19 pm

MasterWhedon wrote:
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:I love you guys but this is why we have no new friends...

WE need to figure out a way to ease them in better. They come from reading the talkbacks and they are all riled up expecting it to be like that in here too. There should be a timeframe where all they can do is read and not post. Then they get the vibe and then every one can be mellow and proper

You have a valid point, Bob, but remember: YOU are one of our "new," post-flood friends and no one has ever had a problem with the way you've conducted yourself.

I'm down with people posting from word one, as long as they gel with the spirit of the Zone. I'm even fine with people getting heated once in a while, as we all do, but only if their posts refrain from a certain superiority.

I'm not trying to make a scapegoat of wheredidigo111, because I think he has a respectable argument in there, but I'm not a fan of how he's presented it and, by extension, himself.


Sents wen where u elected king shit of fukc mountain?
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby MasterWhedon on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:21 pm

Adam Balm wrote:
MasterWhedon wrote:
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:I love you guys but this is why we have no new friends...

WE need to figure out a way to ease them in better. They come from reading the talkbacks and they are all riled up expecting it to be like that in here too. There should be a timeframe where all they can do is read and not post. Then they get the vibe and then every one can be mellow and proper

You have a valid point, Bob, but remember: YOU are one of our "new," post-flood friends and no one has ever had a problem with the way you've conducted yourself.

I'm down with people posting from word one, as long as they gel with the spirit of the Zone. I'm even fine with people getting heated once in a while, as we all do, but only if their posts refrain from a certain superiority.

I'm not trying to make a scapegoat of wheredidigo111, because I think he has a respectable argument in there, but I'm not a fan of how he's presented it and, by extension, himself.


Sents wen where u elected king shit of fukc mountain?

Since I was "made" "Mod" of "Movie Reviews."

""


""
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Leckomaniac on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:38 pm

MasterWhedon wrote:Since I was "made" "Mod" of "Movie Reviews."

""


""


And yet you are so humble.
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby MasterWhedon on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:48 pm

Leckomaniac wrote:
MasterWhedon wrote:Since I was "made" "Mod" of "Movie Reviews."

""


""


And yet you are so humble.

I try, but all bets are off when I feel my manhood is questioned.

NOW BOW BEFORE ME!!

:twisted:
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Leckomaniac on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:58 pm

MasterWhedon wrote:
Leckomaniac wrote:
MasterWhedon wrote:Since I was "made" "Mod" of "Movie Reviews."

""


""


And yet you are so humble.

I try, but all bets are off when I feel my manhood is questioned.

NOW BOW BEFORE ME!!

:twisted:


Zod?
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Adam Balm on Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:59 pm

I'm not leaving here until I get ZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKTed.
Image
User avatar
Adam Balm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 10806
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: factored in this happening when it has happened

Postby Leckomaniac on Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:23 am

Adam Balm wrote:I'm not leaving here until I get ZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACKTed.


Someone is a bit masochistic.
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby austenandrews on Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:23 am

wheredidigo111 wrote:I'm sorry. I sould have said like Batman Forever is to X-men the Last Stand. And may Batman & Robin maybe is going be like X4. And the fact that this has happen before.

BF to X3 is a fair comparison, in terms of series direction. (X3 is much better than BF, but then the X-Men series has been better than the original Batman series in general.) And of course no one wants X4 to be the next B&R. Luckily B&R shines as such a spectacular failure that producers got the message. Plus Avi Arad doesn't seem nearly that clueless.

At any rate I'm not sure how you expect "X-Men fans" to influence anything. They didn't made $140+ million off comic book geeks. And by all accounts, Ratner is quite the comic book fan himself.
User avatar
austenandrews
SUSAN CAGLE
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:45 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby nodforlife on Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:38 am

I don't think BF to X-3 is a fair comparison. Batman Forever, like it or not, was Joel Shumacher's unique take on the Batman universe. His two films looked NOTHING like Burton's, or, subsequently, Nolan's.

Ratner was doing an imitation job. He was trying, to the best of his abilities, to take the universe Singer established and plant his personality on it WITHOUT altering the tone drastically.

Ratner changed the wallpaper, Shumacher build a whole new goddamn house.
nodforlife
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Sunny Los Angeles

Postby Leckomaniac on Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:41 am

nodforlife wrote:I don't think BF to X-3 is a fair comparison. Batman Forever, like it or not, was Joel Shumacher's unique take on the Batman universe. His two films looked NOTHING like Burton's, or, subsequently, Nolan's.

Ratner was doing an imitation job. He was trying, to the best of his abilities, to take the universe Singer established and plant his personality on it WITHOUT altering the tone drastically.

Ratner changed the wallpaper, Shumacher build a whole new goddamn house.


That is an excellent point. I don't see why people feel the need to compare X3 to any other franchise. It only needs to hold up against the other two movies.
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Bob Samonkey on Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:52 am

MasterWhedon wrote:
Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:I love you guys but this is why we have no new friends...

WE need to figure out a way to ease them in better. They come from reading the talkbacks and they are all riled up expecting it to be like that in here too. There should be a timeframe where all they can do is read and not post. Then they get the vibe and then every one can be mellow and proper

You have a valid point, Bob, but remember: YOU are one of our "new," post-flood friends and no one has ever had a problem with the way you've conducted yourself.

I'm down with people posting from word one, as long as they gel with the spirit of the Zone. I'm even fine with people getting heated once in a while, as we all do, but only if their posts refrain from a certain superiority.

I'm not trying to make a scapegoat of wheredidigo111, because I think he has a respectable argument in there, but I'm not a fan of how he's presented it and, by extension, himself.


Your point is very good and I agree with you. I AM a good guy. Thanks! You are right, I wish there wsa a way to post "No hate, just debate" at the top of the forum. Kinda like a "Abandon all hope ye who enter here" but in a good way.

Anyway, X-men was ok. I liked some part and I thought some parts were meh. I do not think it is from not listening to fans though, I think it is from a rushed film. Thats where the problem lies. To get back on topic and all.
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby The Ginger Man on Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:16 am

MasterWhedon wrote:Ginger, my brother, I second.


Thanks, Whedon. Sorry to see you go *poof* in the movie tonight. And on an OT note, me and the lady friend finally started Season 1 of Buffy tonight. So far, pleased with the decision. Best not let us down, Master.
The Ginger Man
Hong Kong Drizzle
 
Posts: 2883
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:35 am

Postby RogueScribner on Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:48 am

DennisMM wrote:Am I the only one who loved The Beast? I'm not seeing much comment here.

Why couldn't they have added ten minutes of Beast to fill out the short running time? While I'd never imagined Hank stuffed into a suit with the voice of Kelsey Grammer, the writing of the character and Grammer's performance worked wonderfully for me. He seemed friendly, witty, just the right amount of stuffy. I loved his comment that he once actually fit into his proto-uniform.

Physically, I was pleasantly surprised. When I first saw photos of Grammer I thought he looked all right, but mostly like Grammer with facial paint and fur. It wasn't until after I'd read he wears seven pieces of facial prosthetics that I saw more closely where the changes were made. Under all of that, to me, he still looked just like Kelsey Grammer. I don't know if that's a testimony to the makeup people or Grammer's ability to act through the latex. The action bits, while minimal, looked more natural than the wire-fu we saw in the trailers. I wish there had been more of that and hope that when Fox revives the series they find a way to fit in more Beast (though Grammer probably will be too old by that time).


Beast was okay, I guess. I really couldn't get past knowing it was Kelsey Grammer playing the character, so I never really saw Beast on screen, just a blue furry Grammer. He was like a calmer Frasier in all of his talky scenes. The action bit towards the end was interesting, but brief. They made him Ambassador at the end, but we never really heard his thoughts on it and what he planned to do.

Nightcrawler was a much more interesting and dynamic blue addition to the cast.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby RogueScribner on Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:55 am

Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:I love you guys but this is why we have no new friends...

WE need to figure out a way to ease them in better. They come from reading the talkbacks and they are all riled up expecting it to be like that in here too. There should be a timeframe where all they can do is read and not post. Then they get the vibe and then every one can be mellow and proper



I never understood why you have to register just to SEE the forums here. Are we keeping something secret? Register to post? Sure, but just to browse? I never understood that. Maybe back when the Zone was still a secret society, but it isnt anymore.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby austenandrews on Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:31 am

nodforlife wrote:I don't think BF to X-3 is a fair comparison. Batman Forever, like it or not, was Joel Shumacher's unique take on the Batman universe. His two films looked NOTHING like Burton's, or, subsequently, Nolan's.

Ratner was doing an imitation job. He was trying, to the best of his abilities, to take the universe Singer established and plant his personality on it WITHOUT altering the tone drastically.

Ratner changed the wallpaper, Shumacher build a whole new goddamn house.

Visually Ratner didn't vary much from what had come before. But X3 was undeniably fluffier and more action-oriented than Singer's films. In the same way, Schumaker's approach in BF was a bit fluffier than Burton's and actually had Batman fighting like Batman.
User avatar
austenandrews
SUSAN CAGLE
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:45 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby wheredidigo111 on Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:58 am

austenandrews wrote:
nodforlife wrote:I don't think BF to X-3 is a fair comparison. Batman Forever, like it or not, was Joel Shumacher's unique take on the Batman universe. His two films looked NOTHING like Burton's, or, subsequently, Nolan's.

Ratner was doing an imitation job. He was trying, to the best of his abilities, to take the universe Singer established and plant his personality on it WITHOUT altering the tone drastically.

Ratner changed the wallpaper, Shumacher build a whole new goddamn house.

Visually Ratner didn't vary much from what had come before. But X3 was undeniably fluffier and more action-oriented than Singer's films. In the same way, Schumaker's approach in BF was a bit fluffier than Burton's and actually had Batman fighting like Batman.


Well you missed what I said. I din't say what as to what X-Men the Last Stand was to Batman Forever. What I said was that fans of Batman where disappoint in this movie just like the X-fans where disappoint in X-Men the Last stand. But still put money. In fact they even hated eneyone who talked bad about Batman Forever. Just like the X-fans are doing now.

Batman Forever: Bat-fans where disappoint but said it was ok and it made a great great popcorn movie.

X-Men the Last Stand: X-fans where disappoint but said it was ok and it made a great great popcorn movie.

See the similarity is not in the movie. It's in the fans. And remember history has a way of repeating itself. By the like Ratner, Shumacher said he was a big comicbook fan of Batman to.
wheredidigo111
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:42 pm

Postby austenandrews on Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:24 am

wheredidigo111 wrote:Batman Forever: Bat-fans where disappoint but said it was ok and it made a great great popcorn movie.

X-Men the Last Stand: X-fans where disappoint but said it was ok and it made a great great popcorn movie.

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that both movies were okay and made great popcorn flicks?

I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that fans of the comic book should slam any X-Men film that's not an absolute home run? How exactly would that help anything?

See the similarity is not in the movie. It's in the fans. And remember history has a way of repeating itself.

The two series have similar progressions, as I said earlier. But I get your point.

By the like Ratner, Shumacher said he was a big comicbook fan of Batman to.

Schumaker was probably lying. He appeared to be a fan of the TV show.
User avatar
austenandrews
SUSAN CAGLE
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:45 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:45 am

Wheredidgo, you've not actually seen the film yet, right?
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Pacino86845 on Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:59 am

So, he can't have an opinion on how people are reacting to the film?

Dudes, leave the poor guy alone!
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:07 am

It's not that. It's just I can understand the idea he's pertaining to, but it's all point of view. I mean, look at Tony and I... or rather us UK Zoners... we all thought it was a pretty lean follow up, not perfect, but then neither was the first (MORE than only my opinion, fyi), then there's losers ;) (heheheh) like Tony who were disappointed. Then you get uber-fans like MW who loved it.

There's a great study on an adventure game website I used to visit called "We Already Hate Your Game". It's a syndrome that could be applied here... Besdies, it's not as if Wheredidigo is pulling any punches himself, is it?
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Pacino86845 on Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:16 am

Ha, that feature is both funny and scary at the same time, AH.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby wheredidigo111 on Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:47 am

austenandrews wrote:[quote="wheredidigo111" ]Batman Forever: Bat-fans where disappoint but said it was ok and it made a great great popcorn movie.

X-Men the Last Stand: X-fans where disappoint but said it was ok and it made a great great popcorn movie.

Maybe it had something to do with the fact that both movies were okay and made great popcorn flicks?

I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that fans of the comic book should slam any X-Men film that's not an absolute home run? How exactly would that help anything?


See the similarity is not in the movie. It's in the fans. And remember history has a way of repeating itself.

The two series have similar progressions, as I said earlier. But I get your point.


By the like Ratner, Shumacher said he was a big comicbook fan of Batman to.

Schumaker was probably lying. He appeared to be a fan of the TV show.


I'm just saying that history is repeating itself. That all. And yes Shumacher was lying when he said that. But he did get himself a Bigtime Bat-fans to anser any Bat-fan questions. That's how on the DVD's he came off looking like the bigest Bat-men of them all. And Ratner could have done the same. But then agen anyone in Hollywood with lots of money can do that or the studio will pay for it. So they can come off as not makeing a none-fan film.
wheredidigo111
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 10:42 pm

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:27 am

Fandom can tip a movie either way... also, and I'm not defending B+R, but the camp was set up somewhat within the gothica of Burton's Batman Returns. I personally didn't think there was anything wrong rerunning the high camp colour of the sixties television series, as Schumacher has confessed to, just he miscast it completely and the writing and pacing was horrendous.

It could've been just as legitimate as a take on Batman as one by Nolan or Burton. It's just obvious on watching that he didn't have enough faith or ability to tip some humanity and warmth into it. It was a half-measure of a movie, more a self parody than parody or warm nod to the series, which in itself knew what it was.

But... X3 is not Batman Forever. It's not Batman and Robin. It doesn't reinvent the franchise, it continues the look, the design, the same characters, the same relationships. It hasn't broken it in any way, shape, or form. Following on from the film, you could do what the hell you wanted if there ever was an X4 and the spinoffs.

You may not like that Cyclops dies personally as a comic fan, but he was arguably pretty useless in the previous films (one of the things many complained about in X2 was his back-seat appearences). This isn't the comics. In fact, there's no reason various mutants couldn't be brought back for following movies. Yes, even Psylocke, Calisto and others... none of them were referred to in the film by name. Plus they weren't completely recognisable from their sources.

Seriously, ultimately... X3 is NOT a Batman and Robin franchise killer. Some might think it's merely an OK film, but it in no way is the sort of injustice you're talking about.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Al Shut on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:39 am

I think his point is not that it's like batman but that X3 success will let the studio to intensify what he thinks went wrong with it with a potential future movie, a feeliing that he also had with the Batman series.
Image
User avatar
Al Shut
THE LAUGHING ZONER
 
Posts: 6147
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:57 pm
Location: Oberhausen, Germany

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:49 am

But it's unfounded in the sense that Hollywood execs like Rothman, and Eisner at Disney before him, will always pull these stunts as being "justifiable". Its been this way forever. Do you think that indie and previous horror film directors are being given these franchises because they're good? Only that? No, it's the thing "du jour" because this seemed to have some success and will continue until someone fucks up.

You can only look at Hollywood cynically. But doing so all the time will only result in getting a headache, as whilst the moneymen are in charge this will always be this way. Not just that, but the comparasions with B+R are pointless. B+R failed. Batman Forever was a fun flick, and if it wasn't for B+R you could argue that Begins wouldn't have been made at all.

All these things are cyclical. But this argument is a bit null when you look at the morass of opinion with X3. It doesn't really pull anything that wasn't already set up, playing fast and loose with canon was also what made X2 a (arguably, again) good film. How is this related to a quality shift that can only be perceived by (looking at the poll) a film that actually stands as being reasonably good?

That's the flaw.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:59 am

Well, the subdued action and spectacle in x1 was a result of a small (for a superhero film) budget and studio interference. Singer was given more of a free reign with the 2nd hence the better action. Because of that it's difficult to call the much less than stellar action and pace in x1 "canon" as that implies that the bad action was really Singer's vision.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Shane on Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:16 am

All comics, continuity, or previous fims aside who agrees that as a film in and of itself it was a good or fun film?
User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:17 am

@Tony - Where did that come from?

You can do good action on a small budget. He just wasn't confident in it at the time it was made... because X2's was better doesn't automatically redeem X1. Singer as an action director, maybe, but not the film. But again, as someone put to me once... how much of X2's action was singer, as how much of the cinematography in X3 was Ratner? Dubious questions indeed!

But that's not the point I was making.. and I don't like X1 because of poor action so don't assume that's why I'm so "meh" about it. I made no mention of it! I actually really love the dreamlike fight between Mystique and Wolverine, wirework or no, it made her seem surreal and inhuman.

So, here are my feelings on X1 laid out.

As a film, outside of characterisation, X1 is a mess of flitting about here and there. It's not a "setup" film like Batman Begins at all, it's nowhere near as good... I don't like a film being given a free pass because it's setting up a universe for later movies. I didn't even like the production design at the time, which felt like it was tapping too heavily into the dark zeitgeist created by Blade and The Matrix. I still don't. The music was also pretty bland. In fact, a good summation of the film is to me was just how bland it felt overall.

Little structural issues everywhere really got to me, because the pacing was so sedate. Unlike in X3, where its moving along so quick that most issues are wallpapered over, X1 gave me too many gaping sections where it just felt incredibly convenient. Contrivances like Rogue's meeting with Wolverine followed by Sabertooth turning up... the odd mix of almost Bourne-style realism and overblown cartoon concepts. The whole film felt uncomfortably unsure about what it wanted to achieve. X2 solved this by saying "screw it" and sewing the seams tighter, but comparatively X1 only ever felt like a bunch of bits moving slowly from one to the next.

But some of those bits were great. In fact, they really stood out. The introduction to Magneto. Rogue's personal introduction. Xavier and Magneto's talk. Rogue waking Wolverine. Magneto's first show of power. But unfortunately the lesser parts balanced it out of my interest. Whenever Sabretooth turned up. Toad's non-role as anything other than a gurning, annoying clown. Halle Berry's worst turn ever. The entire plot device. The dull production design.

But this is just me, just an explanation as to why I don't hold X1 in high regard. I just don't think it's a very good film.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:30 am

Er, thanks for that. Ok.


X1 is ok, just ok, in my eyes. I don't really worry/care what other people think about it.
I wasn't redeeming X1 by saying x2 was good.
And I haven't assumed why your "meh" about it. I've not thought about why you don't like it other than people have different tastes. My point was over the word "canon".

Thing is though, Singer has been a very confident director since Usual Suspects, he wouldn't just lose that confidence with x1. Even with the bigger pressure on him. He was very passionate about it all.
And "how much x1 action was Singer" is my point really.
All three films have similar action styles and they all have the same first a.d. So with the same a.d and a bigger budget each time the action got bigger each time. Sure it could be just a conincidence but it's doubtful. Singer obviously had a hand in the action/how powers were used but he was constrained by budget in number one. He was given more freedom on x2 so he could either give more freedom to the first a.d or he could take much more control.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:42 am

Foo'! I thought you were talkin' to me.

Eh, visually Usual Suspects wasn't all that. I love that film, did an essay on it for my BA, but he was never one for eye-searingly good visuals. He's no Ang Lee! He's a character actors director. I'd argue that confidence is more than just the ability to think you can do something, it's pulling it off. That's why I say X1 isn't a confident film as there was a flatness to a lot of it that felt like someone finding their feet. That the little character moments were the strongest parts was when what he knew flashed through.

In fact, he faced these issues head-on in X2 and made a better film. Regardless if it's the ad or whatnot, these things are planned in-board and require confidence in ideas as well as execution... It's knowing where you went wrong too, where your weaknesses are. That's why I said Singer redeemed these issues within himself, but not the film.

We could argue these points all night, truth is we don't know. I just feel X1 lacks a lot as a movie. That shouldn't give X3 a ticket to ride as part of the trilogy, of course, but what can I say? I enjoyed it more. :)
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:51 am

I like x1 more, but that's cus of the characters and Singer's skills with that. I just generally prefer films about character over action. Not to diss on action films, but since the Matrix (which is still more sci-fi noir than action anyway) there hasn't been an action film from the US that I have enjoyed.

I agree that visually Singer isn't a Ridley Scott or a Spielberg, I think he finds nice angles and composes shots nicely but he's not a stylist.
Also x1 is much slower and not a particularly confident movie, but I wouldn't say that meant Singer wasn't confident. Rather that time/budget constrctions meant he couldn't put his vision across very well. The reason I blame the budget over Singer is that when he was given more control he made an excellent film. But still a heck of a lot of character work was done in x1 which I think made x2 all the more enjoyable.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby MasterWhedon on Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:49 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Eh, visually Usual Suspects wasn't all that.

Now you must die.

For what budget The Usual Suspects had, it looks fucking INCREDIBLE. Newton Thomas Siegel is one of my absolutely favorite DPs, and he gave that film a sheen it shouldn't have been able to have.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:57 pm

I won't die. It was ok, but I don't remember anything outstandingly wonderful about its visuals that sticks in my head. And I watched that fantastic movie over and over and over again until I got sick of it (yes, it's possible). I don't believe a DOP stands on the strength of their work all the time, otherwise Serenity wouldn't have looked like a TV movie.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby MasterWhedon on Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:04 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:I won't die. It was ok, but I don't remember anything outstandingly wonderful about its visuals that sticks in my head. And I watched that fantastic movie over and over and over again until I got sick of it (yes, it's possible). I don't believe a DOP stands on the strength of their work all the time, otherwise Serenity wouldn't have looked like a TV movie.

WHOA. WHOA. WHOA.














I must leave this conversation right now for fear that my head will explode.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:07 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:I won't die. It was ok, but I don't remember anything outstandingly wonderful about its visuals that sticks in my head. And I watched that fantastic movie over and over and over again until I got sick of it (yes, it's possible). I don't believe a DOP stands on the strength of their work all the time, otherwise Serenity wouldn't have looked like a TV movie.


IPAMPILASH!, AH just twisted the knife...
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:30 pm

Wha? All I'm saying is if someone lived up to their output all the time, all the geniuses would never fluff. ;) Ya gotta trip up sometime. But that's not the case here.

TUS' cinematography was solid, but it's not the most outstandingly beautiful film I've ever seen... LOL that'd be House Of Flying Daggers, and I thought that outside of the visuals that film was crapalicious!
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby cinephile2000 on Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:09 pm

I thought when I saw this the last thirty minutes were great. The action was the best of any x movie, the drama and story was the worst. They finally got them fighting as a team which was great. I really didn't like the pheonix stuff but I loved the cure stuff. I felt like they had enough good story for two movies they should have just chose one. I give it a C-
Just remember, your special like everyone else.
User avatar
cinephile2000
BOMB IN RIBCAGE
 
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:03 pm
Location: Texas, yeah I said it.

Postby Pudie on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:25 pm

So I saw this over the weekend. Obviously spoilers ahead.


The good

-Phionex was bad ass. The 2 scenes of her raising all sorts of hell were the best parts of the movie, hands down.

-Halle Berry actually want that bad. It was nice to see her do more stuff then just get gray eyes.

-Scott got killed off quick. Never liked the guy, glad he's gone.

-Ian McKellan could quote the phone book and still kick ass. I loved how he just flung those cars around like it was no bg deal. And then he moved the fucking golden gate bridge.


The bad

-Kittie is an X-men!? WTF? How about some sort of introduction. She was just there and they treat it like she's been there since the first movie. At least Colosus had a cameo in the last one.

-As much as I loved Phionex, the shouldn't have killed her. There is a ton of potential in that story and they could have easily made at least one more movie to tell it.

-Magnetos pawns fucking sucked. Seriously. What a bunh of losers. And thost tattoos. Pathetic.

-And what was with Magnetos Osama Bin Laden like tape? Way to be subtle, Ratner.

-Angel was fucking pointless. He only served to save his dad at the end. His part should have been completly edited out.

-DONT FUCKING TAKE AWAY MAGNETOS POWERS!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!!!! MAGNETO
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *
Image
User avatar
Pudie
MAN IN SUIT
 
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:16 pm
Location: *witty remark*

Postby Leckomaniac on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:34 pm

Pudie wrote:Scott got killed off quick. Never liked the guy, glad he's gone.


Beware the wrath of MasterWhedon.

What's that???? I think I hear a ZACKT! coming your way.
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby athenabodicea on Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:38 pm

OH NOOOOOO!!!!!!


I wish I knew how to quit this thread.....

I need to just go and see this fucking movie already....
ImageImageImage
User avatar
athenabodicea
GEEK GODDESS
 
Posts: 5181
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Hell if I know!!!

Postby The Ginger Man on Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:13 am

Hmmm...I seem to be the only person who found the cure storyline the weaker of the two plots. While the cure idea would certainly be interesting and have many intellectual avenues to explore....I don't want to watch a 2 hour comic book movie about the ethical arguments of curing mutation. Makes a great subplot...but seriously, I'm not reading a scientific journal article. (and I know Whedon made the cure story interesting...but Whedon wasn't making this film...so I leave it at that).

This being the culmination of the trilogy, the phoenix plot worked so much better. it allowed for truly awesome displays of mutant power (something the previous 2 films were lacking). and it gave emotional closure to many of the plot points. Yeah, it wasn't handled that great, but it's where the weight of the story should have been. And it makes the films escalate in danger.

X1: Xmen vs Magneto
X2: Xmen vs Mankind
X3: Xmen vs Themselves

Before they can change the world, they have to overcome their personal demons. Good stuff...if it had been done that way. Just saying, the cure plotline was shit.
The Ginger Man
Hong Kong Drizzle
 
Posts: 2883
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:35 am

Postby Doc Holliday on Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:43 am

OK - so DAREDEVEIL was on over the weekend. I missed it - funnily enough having gone to see X3 a second time, for an objectivity-check.

So I slapped on the Daredevil DVD yesterday and ended up watching the movie, listening to the commentary, watching the (excellent) documentary with the various comic book contributors and all the other extras.

Now, I get that point made a few pages back on this thread - I don't want to compare X3 the movie with Daredeveil the movie - but I was struck by the amount of similarities in terms of the conditions both films got made under - and I tell you what, IMO X3 shows Ratner in a pretty good light when you consider it on these terms.

Now....I'm talking the original theatrical release of Daredevil here, for that is the only fair comparison.....

You think Iceman CGI was ropey? Take a look at at least 3 different Daredevil shots. (the bar fight, the alleyway and the organ - snarf snarf).

And besides which, was Iceman was so terrible - don't you think thats always going to look a bit hokey anyway...we're talking human popsicle here people. Looked to me like they'd effectively done a translucent Colossus...same effect, less time, less cost...makes sense in the context of what they had to work with.

You want to talk continuity errors? Right, then lets talk - in X3 with the exception of "ItsDAYnowitsNIGHT" everyones quibbles really are quite individual and personal - not the sort of glaring UNIVERSAL errors like Affleck repeating the same line after defeating Kingpin....or the ball he goes to being in July on one invite....and then in August about four shots later. And so on and so on.

Right - a good time for me to break - I'm not hating on Daredevil, I'm really not - and please lets not get sucked into that kind of debate. If you read interviews with Mark Steven Johnson then you see he's a good guy who has some talent. At the time of Daredevil he had a lot to learn - but then I like that the studio actually took a risk and don't want to discourage that. My ONLY point is that in fact Daredevil is chock-full of the kind of errors that X3 should have been - hell, that any film with a nonsensical shoot schedule and lack of funding/support hampering it should.

And Johnson was a diehard fan of his subject material - Ratner had to fast-track himself - and I think he did a good job - he could have failed in so many ways, instead of some of the minutae I see springing up on this thread.

So whaddya think?
"I think the worst time to have a heart attack is during a game of charades..."

Demetri Martin
User avatar
Doc Holliday
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6434
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Crawling along a razor's edge

Postby colonel_lugz on Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:46 am

Here are some concept designs of how Grean Grey/Dark Pheonix coulda/shoulda looked

http://www.alpaltiner.com/alp_navigation_html/alp_xmen.html
You Called Down The Thunder, Well Now You Got It!
User avatar
colonel_lugz
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:09 pm
Location: London

Postby Hermanator X on Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:19 am

Doc Holliday wrote:You want to talk continuity errors? Right, then lets talk - in X3 with the exception of "ItsDAYnowitsNIGHT" everyones quibbles really are quite individual and personal - not the sort of glaring UNIVERSAL errors like Affleck repeating the same line after defeating Kingpin....or the ball he goes to being in July on one invite....and then in August about four shots later. And so on and so on.


I Believe that the date changing is an intentional error, for comic effect (coming after the love scene suggesting they spent a month in bed). Cant remember where i read\heard it, but it was the director saying it was his own little gag, rather than a goof.

As for X3, I liked it. Wasnt blown away, but enjoyed the ride. The brotherhood were on the whole laughable, but Im at a loss as to how to depict an army of mutants and not make 'em look cheesy.
User avatar
Hermanator X
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:55 pm
Location: Kongsberg, Norway, This Town needs an enema

Postby Shane on Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:55 am

I think you have to accept some cheese in a comic book superhero film.
User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby Hermanator X on Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:08 am

Yeah, cheese is essential, and its what makes em fun. Especially seeing Wolverine turning a good amout of em into swiss cheese!!
...and so forth.
User avatar
Hermanator X
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:55 pm
Location: Kongsberg, Norway, This Town needs an enema

Postby Shane on Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:09 am

If you think, how uncheesy is x-men?

guy with eye beams. Guy with magnetic control powers, girl walks through walls, etc...

and they all wear neat outfits.
User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests

cron