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 AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 3:49 pm

Don't get me wrong, I loved her character - my problem was she was only there to give Wolverine something to fight against and nothing more. There's a wonderful hint to the reality of her situation in a single moment, but she was woefully underused and shamefully thrown away. The X-Men Darth Maul, as it were.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Peven on Sun May 14, 2006 3:50 pm

Chilli wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:X2 suffered from too many characters as well. For example, Deathstrike was really underdeveloped and on her death, despite her being under someone elses control (if I remember rightly, been a while), was hardly as tragic as it could've been...


But as a parallel with Wolverine, she was incredibly effective. She was what he could have been... and it does seem like Stryker wanted Wolverine to be his muscle... not to mention the fact that Wolverine is now wise to a way that he can be killed permanently.

Sure there was more they could've done, but she was incredibly effective in relation to Wolverine.


see, here you make excuses for Singer, rationalizing the shortcomings of an underdeveloped Lady Deathstrike, where you rip on Ratner for the same thing in regard to character development without even having seen X3 yet. X2 had its flaws, and i'm sure X3 will have some too. but i since i liked X2, i think its possible i'll like X3 too. does that not make sense?
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14773
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 3:55 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Ok, point by point.

Usual Suspects twist repays multiple viewings as you can see for yourself where Verbal was bullshitting and what other parts are confirmed by other charaters, the twist doesn't have to have clues, that's not the point, it's a film about storytelling and unreliable narrators. Repeat viewings are a pleasure to watch.

Actually I didn't jump on the copying thins as a reason why Ratner sucked, go back and READ what I wrote not what you hoped I wrote so you could try and call me a hater (really poor attempt BTW). I said Ratner trying to follow Singer's visions might be foolish. I then went on to say that the elements being copied weren't necessarily down to Ratner anyway, as people keep saying he might not have had much creative control over things. My arguments have been more that he isn't respecting the first 2 films not that he's copying things, maybe this went over your head, you really must try and read what i write with an openmind, you are clearly not a fan of judging directors by their previous work, don't do the same with Zoners :P


You're both judging on your own criteria, though, Tony, which is why you aren't agreeing. Peven's main point, which I agree with, is that any script or plot failings (depending on who you're talking to) aren't anything to do with Ratner. Ratner has no choice but to follow Singer's vision and to pull it off is going to be difficult, but that's not HIS fault at all. As brought up before by Kirk in the other thread (where this should be), better have someone who cares than someone who doesn't. You opinion of Ratners previous work is completely based on your own views of his films which is where your judgement comes from, as does Peven's, which is more positive.

Which is why this argument on those terms does, as Sep said, is like playing tennis. Both make good points, but until the film is seen by either party, not judgement can be made.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 3:55 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:X2 suffered from too many characters as well. For example, Deathstrike was really underdeveloped and on her death, despite her being under someone elses control (if I remember rightly, been a while), was hardly as tragic as it could've been...


But as a parallel with Wolverine, she was incredibly effective. She was what he could have been... and it does seem like Stryker wanted Wolverine to be his muscle... not to mention the fact that Wolverine is now wise to a way that he can be killed permanently.

Sure there was more they could've done, but she was incredibly effective in relation to Wolverine.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Peven on Sun May 14, 2006 3:57 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:O k, point by point.

Usual Suspects twist repays multiple viewings as you can see for yourself where Verbal was bullshitting and what other parts are confirmed by other charaters, the twist doesn't have to have clues, that's not the point, it's a film about storytelling and unreliable narrators. Repeat viewings are a pleasure to watch.

Actually I didn't jump on the copying thins as a reason why Ratner sucked, go back and READ what I wrote not what you hoped I wrote so you could try and call me a hater (really poor attempt BTW). I said Ratner trying to follow Singer's visions might be foolish. I then went on to say that the elements being copied weren't necessarily down to Ratner anyway, as people keep saying he might not have had much creative control over things. My arguments have been more that he isn't respecting the first 2 films not that he's copying things, maybe this went over your head, you really must try and read what i write with an openmind, you are clearly not a fan of judging directors by their previous work, don't do the same with Zoners :P


You're both judging on your own criteria, though, Tony, which is why you aren't agreeing. Peven's main point, which I agree with, is that any script or plot failings (depending on who you're talking to) aren't anything to do with Ratner. Ratner has no choice but to follow Singer's vision and to pull it off is going to be difficult, but that's not HIS fault at all. As brought up before by Kirk in the other thread (where this should be), better have someone who cares than someone who doesn't. You opinion of Ratners previous work is completely based on your own views of his films which is where your judgement comes from, as does Peven's, which is more positive.

Which is why this argument on those terms does, as Sep said, is like playing tennis. Both make good points, but until the film is seen by either party, not judgement can be made.


point, AH. spot on.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14773
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 3:59 pm

DennisMM wrote:I've seen parts of both Rush Hour movies and couldn't stay because Chris Tucker gives me hives. I found him less believable as a police detective than I did as Prince/Little Richard in The Fifth Element, and he was meant to be irritating there. I didn't make it through The Family Man. After the Sunset didn't pique my interest. So my greatest prejudice against Ratner comes from Red Dragon.

Ratner took a remarkably dynamic characater, Will Graham, cast one of the finer "young" actors working these days, Ed Norton, and made him dull. Ed Norton, in my experience is not a dull actor. Will Graham is not a dull character. Watch William Petersen in Manhunter, or just read Red Dragon, and it's obviously how lacking Norton's performance was. He seemed not driven or edgy or haunted, merely itred. A good director would have kicked Norton in the ass to get a better performance. It would appear Ratner did not.

On the positive side, he got a very solid performance out of Ralph Fiennes. But still, making Norton dull? Inexcusable.


Given the balance between Norton/Fiennes, you sure Norton wasn't just sleepwalking? Sounds to me like Ratner was doing his job, it's just Norton wasn't following through. But that's the beauty of individual perception. I'd have to watch it again, though. Norton is as capable of being fallible as an actor as Ridley Scott is as a director, as proven by GI Jane and Hannibal.

You know, one of the things about filmmaking is that you often don't know what you've captured until you view the rushes. Who's to say that the performance Norton was giving, on his own basis and through working with Ratner, wasn't what they were trying to achieve.

Personally, I feel Manhunter is by far the better film. But I know more people who prefer Red Dragon who're quite willing to argue the crap out of me purely on the basis of Mann's visual style.
Last edited by AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 3:59 pm

Chilli wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Don't get me wrong, I loved her character - my problem was she was only there to give Wolverine something to fight against and nothing more. There's a wonderful hint to the reality of her situation in a single moment, but she was woefully underused and shamefully thrown away. The X-Men Darth Maul, as it were.


There's a chance she'll be back in the Wolverine flick... so maybe you'll get that depth and reality.

In regards to Darth Maul, I'm GLAD that he didn't get more screentime. Lucas fucked up every character in the prequel trilogy, so I'm really happy he got a minimalistic role.


She's back in the game. ;)
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby DennisMM on Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm

I've seen parts of both Rush Hour movies and couldn't stay because Chris Tucker gives me hives. I found him less believable as a police detective than I did as Prince/Little Richard in The Fifth Element, and he was meant to be irritating there. I didn't make it through The Family Man. After the Sunset didn't pique my interest. So my greatest prejudice against Ratner comes from Red Dragon.

Ratner took a remarkably dynamic characater, Will Graham, cast one of the finer "young" actors working these days, Ed Norton, and made him dull. Ed Norton, in my experience is not a dull actor. Will Graham is not a dull character. Watch William Petersen in Manhunter, or just read Red Dragon, and it's obviously how lacking Norton's performance was. He seemed not driven or edgy or haunted, merely tired. A good director would have kicked Norton in the ass to get a better performance. It would appear Ratner did not.

On the positive side, he got a very solid performance out of Ralph Fiennes. But still, making Norton dull? Inexcusable.
Last edited by DennisMM on Sun May 14, 2006 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16813
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 4:02 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Don't get me wrong, I loved her character - my problem was she was only there to give Wolverine something to fight against and nothing more. There's a wonderful hint to the reality of her situation in a single moment, but she was woefully underused and shamefully thrown away. The X-Men Darth Maul, as it were.


There's a chance she'll be back in the Wolverine flick... so maybe you'll get that depth and reality.

In regards to Darth Maul, I'm GLAD that he didn't get more screentime. Lucas fucked up every character in the prequel trilogy, so I'm really happy he got a minimalistic role.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 4:07 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:Ok, point by point.

Usual Suspects twist repays multiple viewings as you can see for yourself where Verbal was bullshitting and what other parts are confirmed by other charaters, the twist doesn't have to have clues, that's not the point, it's a film about storytelling and unreliable narrators. Repeat viewings are a pleasure to watch.

Actually I didn't jump on the copying thins as a reason why Ratner sucked, go back and READ what I wrote not what you hoped I wrote so you could try and call me a hater (really poor attempt BTW). I said Ratner trying to follow Singer's visions might be foolish. I then went on to say that the elements being copied weren't necessarily down to Ratner anyway, as people keep saying he might not have had much creative control over things. My arguments have been more that he isn't respecting the first 2 films not that he's copying things, maybe this went over your head, you really must try and read what i write with an openmind, you are clearly not a fan of judging directors by their previous work, don't do the same with Zoners :P


You're both judging on your own criteria, though, Tony, which is why you aren't agreeing. Peven's main point, which I agree with, is that any script or plot failings (depending on who you're talking to) aren't anything to do with Ratner.


But I have never said those things are Ratner's fault. Why do people think I have?
But a bad director with a bad script is far from promising right?



AtomicHyperbole wrote:Ratner has no choice but to follow Singer's vision and to pull it off is going to be difficult, but that's not HIS fault at all. As brought up before by Kirk in the other thread (where this should be), better have someone who cares than someone who doesn't.


But with a shit script and rushed production and having your hands tied over so much, why, if you really cared about the project would you take it on board? Unless you really cared more about the dollar signs that the project at hand. Caring more about the moeny doesn't make Ratner a bad director, but why people think he must love the franchise is beyond me.



AtomicHyperbole wrote:You opinion of Ratners previous work is completely based on your own views of his films which is where your judgement comes from, as does Peven's, which is more positive.

Which is why this argument on those terms does, as Sep said, is like playing tennis. Both make good points, but until the film is seen by either party, not judgement can be made.


I agree and I have never once said X3 is a shit film. I have said that, from what I've seen and read and considering the fact that Ratner is a shitty director, that my hopes for this film are very low. That doesn't make me a hater, just someone taking ALL the evidence and making educated guesses.

What I'm not doing is trying to call those who don't agree with me a hater or looking for ways not to attack the arguments but the person making them which is what Peven is doing with everything I post.
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 May 14, 2006 4:37 pm

Tony wrote:But I have never said those things are Ratner's fault. Why do people think I have?
But a bad director with a bad script is far from promising right?


But if the argument on the other side is that Ratner ISN'T a bad director, then nobody is going to agree. I don't think he's the most amazing director ever, however, I think he's perfectly capable. That's a difference of opinion - but the reason for the issue is that many, many people irrationally hate Ratner. You might not, but I get the feeling that's what's spurring this discussion on.


But with a shit script and rushed production and having your hands tied over so much, why, if you really cared about the project would you take it on board? Unless you really cared more about the dollar signs that the project at hand. Caring more about the moeny doesn't make Ratner a bad director, but why people think he must love the franchise is beyond me.


I take it from personal experience. However, unlike Ratner, I never followed through for very, VERY good reasons I'm not going to go into here.

In the past I managed to get the job as a script supervisor on a terrible commercial animation, through which I ended up inexplicably finding myself as the director.

One factor was the money, naturally, but in the main it was to do with the fact I could see that I could turn it around, prove myself, make it far better - without compromising the original series. In fact, despite having left that project, I feel that what little I did actually helped propel it in a far better direction than it was going to start with.

I was hired for this attitude and I like to believe, and it was adknowledged, that I managed to take this onboard. I knew it was never going to set the world on fire, I knew the scripts were awful, yet I was committed to showing that even with this as a basis, I could create something that pulled itself from the mire and entertain far more than it should.

It's more likely, as a professional and obvious fan, Ratner saw it this way himself on X-Men. Who's to say that's not the case? You're making assumptions based on feeling, I'm trying to make assumptions based on what actually happened to me.

It's more likely Ratner saw it as an opportunity to work on something he's got an obvious love for and try to do some justice with, than take on board such a difficult task for money reasons alone. Directing is NOT easy - especially when brought in last minute. Seeing as Ratner is an efficient director, if nothing more, that's how I see it.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 4:50 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:
Tony wrote:But I have never said those things are Ratner's fault. Why do people think I have?
But a bad director with a bad script is far from promising right?


But if the argument on the other side is that Ratner ISN'T a bad director, then nobody is going to agree. I don't think he's the most amazing director ever, however, I think he's perfectly capable. That's a difference of opinion - but the reason for the issue is that many, many people irrationally hate Ratner. You might not, but I get the feeling that's what's spurring this discussion on.


But with a shit script and rushed production and having your hands tied over so much, why, if you really cared about the project would you take it on board? Unless you really cared more about the dollar signs that the project at hand. Caring more about the moeny doesn't make Ratner a bad director, but why people think he must love the franchise is beyond me.


I take it from personal experience. However, unlike Ratner, I never followed through for very, VERY good reasons I'm not going to go into here.

In the past I managed to get the job as a script supervisor on a terrible commercial animation, through which I ended up inexplicably finding myself as the director.

One factor was the money, naturally, but in the main it was to do with the fact I could see that I could turn it around, prove myself, make it far better - without compromising the original series. In fact, despite having left that project, I feel that what little I did actually helped propel it in a far better direction than it was going to start with.

I was hired for this attitude and I like to believe, and it was adknowledged, that I managed to take this onboard. I knew it was never going to set the world on fire, I knew the scripts were awful, yet I was committed to showing that even with this as a basis, I could create something that pulled itself from the mire and entertain far more than it should.

It's more likely, as a professional and obvious fan, Ratner saw it this way himself on X-Men. Who's to say that's not the case? You're making assumptions based on feeling, I'm trying to make assumptions based on what actually happened to me.

It's more likely Ratner saw it as an opportunity to work on something he's got an obvious love for and try to do some justice with, than take on board such a difficult task for money reasons alone. Directing is NOT easy - especially when brought in last minute. Seeing as Ratner is an efficient director, if nothing more, that's how I see it.



Just a couple of things, why is it irrational to hate Ratner if you think his movies are bland shite? Ok, ok hating someone over directing a film is irrational, but you know what I mean.
I would say from my experience, that people dislike Ratner's direction so obviously they are dubious about any project he's directing. I don't think that's irrational.

Other thing is, if Ratner's doing it for that reason then coolio, but just because he has love for it doesn't mean he's going to be able to overcome all these obstacles.

I'm making assumptions on the evidence I have, you are colouring Ratner's thought processes with your own.
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 TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 5:14 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:What evidence do you have? You don't have any that can't be coloured a different way, which is why you're having this discussion between yourself and Peven and I. You're picking up evidence based on your own taste, mine are based on my own experience in a similar field, given a similar choice and on interviews I've read with Ratner. Don't try to invalidate what I'm saying by giving basis to your own assumptions, if you see what I mean.


I'm not trying to invalidate what you are saying. I just wanted to point out that while you are using your experiences to think about why Ratner took the project, I'm using the evidence of the poor trailers and dodgy scenes which suggest that either he didn't care about the project or he's just directed it badly. Both my ideas and yours are valid and they are both coloured by our opinions.
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 May 14, 2006 5:16 pm

What evidence do you have? You don't have any that can't be coloured a different way, which is why you're having this discussion between yourself and Peven and I. You're picking up evidence based on your own taste, mine are based on my own experience in a similar field, given a similar choice and on interviews I've read with Ratner. Don't try to invalidate what I'm saying by giving basis to your own assumptions, if you see what I mean.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 5:23 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I'm not trying to invalidate what you are saying. I just wanted to point out that while you are using your experiences to think about why Ratner took the project, I'm using the evidence of the poor trailers and dodgy scenes which suggest that either he didn't care about the project or he's just directed it badly. Both my ideas and yours are valid and they are both coloured by our opinions.


I guess the only thing that I didn't like was that one Leno clip, which is why I'm waiting for confirmation that it is that bad. Problem is, the rest of the clips so heavily outweigh it for me into making it look like a fun flick. I see nothing but good visual direction and a follow through of the previous films, one of which I didn't was all that stunning in the first place. I guess that's where we differ... I want a good time out of it, nothing more.


Hell I want a good time out of it. It's just......i suppose what I need to give me a good time is very different to what Ratner has done in the past or what the script has promised, the trailers seem to confirm it's just going to be spectacle and the atmosphere seems lost.
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 May 14, 2006 5:28 pm

TonyWilson wrote:I'm not trying to invalidate what you are saying. I just wanted to point out that while you are using your experiences to think about why Ratner took the project, I'm using the evidence of the poor trailers and dodgy scenes which suggest that either he didn't care about the project or he's just directed it badly. Both my ideas and yours are valid and they are both coloured by our opinions.


I guess the only thing that I didn't like was that one Leno clip, which is why I'm waiting for confirmation that it is that bad. Problem is, the rest of the clips so heavily outweigh it for me into making it look like a fun flick. I see nothing but good visual direction and a follow through of the previous films, one of which I didn't was all that stunning in the first place. I guess that's where we differ... I want a good time out of it, nothing more.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Sun May 14, 2006 5:36 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Hell I want a good time out of it. It's just......i suppose what I need to give me a good time is very different to what Ratner has done in the past or what the script has promised, the trailers seem to confirm it's just going to be spectacle and the atmosphere seems lost.


Fair enough, fella. Good discussion though, wasn't it? :D
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Chilli on Sun May 14, 2006 5:39 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:Hell I want a good time out of it. It's just......i suppose what I need to give me a good time is very different to what Ratner has done in the past or what the script has promised, the trailers seem to confirm it's just going to be spectacle and the atmosphere seems lost.


Fair enough, fella. Good discussion though, wasn't it? :D


Holy shit that trailer on C5 (UK) sucked. I mean I'm hoping what I've heard is wrong and its a good flick... but Angel's poses, look, CGI... I want to fucking hurt someone its just that bad... and Storm spinning/flying -- fuck off that's useless.

Still, Wolverine/Juggernaut/Beast look decent.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby DennisMM on Sun May 14, 2006 5:57 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Given the balance between Norton/Fiennes, you sure Norton wasn't just sleepwalking? Sounds to me like Ratner was doing his job, it's just Norton wasn't following through. But that's the beauty of individual perception. I'd have to watch it again, though. Norton is as capable of being fallible as an actor as Ridley Scott is as a director, as proven by GI Jane and Hannibal.

You know, one of the things about filmmaking is that you often don't know what you've captured until you view the rushes. Who's to say that the performance Norton was giving, on his own basis and through working with Ratner, wasn't what they were trying to achieve.


I agree with you completely about an actor's fallibility being as common as a director's, but I think Ratner should have seen something was not right in Norton's work. They don't call rushes "dailies" for nothing. I think that after a few days of shooting, Ratner would have to have seen the lack of energy in Norton's performance.

If the flatness and weariness Norton showed was intentional and a choice of director and actor, my earlier statements are irrelevant. Were this the case, though, I'd say the choice was a poor one. So it goes, eh?

I'm going to shut up now, because I haven't seen the movie and this is supposed to be a review thread.
Image
User avatar
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16813
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby raasnio on Sun May 14, 2006 6:32 pm

seppukudkurosawa wrote:Why aren't people comparing X-Men III to Spiderman or even Batman Continues? This I don't like Singer therefore X-men will be good business makes no sense to me. How does showing another film/director's flaws make X-III any better or worse?


Just a guess, but Ratner and Singer are the only 2 directors involved with bringing X-Men to the screen. One will be compared to the other. That is inevitable. Both Raimi and Nolan have not worked on an X-Men film.

As has been covered, there is a lot of Ratner bashing before we've even seen the film. That's why we are having this discussion.

End this discussion and what is there to review? The film isn't out yet. Until it is, some feel the need to have their say about the directing choice.
User avatar
raasnio
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Postby TonyWilson on Sun May 14, 2006 8:00 pm

MisterCynic wrote:do you guys seriously see no difference (or a negligible one) between usual suspects, apt pupil, x1, x2 and rush hour, rush hour 2, after the sunset, red dragon, family man... really?

thats why people are giving singer the benefit of the doubt over ratner. it shouldnt be any harder to explain than that.


Careful, Peven will accuse you of being a "hater".
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 MisterCynic on Sun May 14, 2006 8:08 pm

do you guys seriously see no difference (or a negligible one) between usual suspects, apt pupil, x1, x2 and rush hour, rush hour 2, after the sunset, red dragon, family man... really?

thats why people are giving singer the benefit of the doubt over ratner. it shouldnt be any harder to explain than that.
MisterCynic
STEAK-A-BABY
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:05 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun May 14, 2006 9:22 pm

Image

"YES!!!"
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby The Ginger Man on Sun May 14, 2006 9:28 pm

Now I haven't seen too many of the internet clips. But I did just see a TV clip where Magneto rips off a part of the Golden Gate bridge, so he and the Brotherhood can float out to Alcatraz. Followed by Magneto saying "Charles always wanted to build bridges."

Has no one else seen this clip? Am I the only person who found it incredibly cheesy?
The Ginger Man
Hong Kong Drizzle
 
Posts: 2883
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:35 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Sun May 14, 2006 9:29 pm

The Ginger Man wrote:Now I haven't seen too many of the internet clips. But I did just see a TV clip where Magneto rips off a part of the Golden Gate bridge, so he and the Brotherhood can float out to Alcatraz. Followed by Magneto saying "Charles always wanted to build bridges."

Has no one else seen this clip? Am I the only person who found it incredibly cheesy?



Image

"YES!!!"
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby MisterCynic on Mon May 15, 2006 12:05 am

MisterCynic
STEAK-A-BABY
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:05 am

Postby MisterCynic on Mon May 15, 2006 3:27 am

its possible that its fake, but the guy goes into serious spoiler mode in a later post after people dismissed him as bullshit. it sounds like it could be true to me, but what do i know...
MisterCynic
STEAK-A-BABY
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:05 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 3:28 am

No, cos on another thread apparently it's just a shitload of spoilers, unless someone can confirm otherwise.

But I clicked on it anyway and this site has already published it last week. Wasn't it one of the ones declared fake and taken down?
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 3:30 am

MisterCynic wrote:its possible that its fake, but the guy goes into serious spoiler mode in a later post after people dismissed him as bullshit. it sounds like it could be true to me, but what do i know...


There's a bunch of dicks at Superhero Hype who're deliberately trying to undermine AICN's credibility. I'm pretty certain that's one of the reviews I read last week that was taken down, but could be wrong.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Chilli on Mon May 15, 2006 6:27 am

The line comes from a moment in the fight on Alcatraz island, when Wolverine is fighting an unnammed mutant. Wolvie cuts this guy to ribbons, lopping arms off, but the guy keeps growing the limbs back and punching Logan with the newly, rapidly grown limbs; so this slice,grow limb back,punch, routine goes on for about 30 seconds and finally the regrow guy backs away from Logan and goads him with something like "that all you got?" to which Logan kicks him square between the legs with a big ol kick. The regrow guy goes down like a sack of potatoes, at which point Wolverine looks down at the groaning form and says "Try growing those back"

Anyway, a little short of going through the film scene by scene I'll just have to answer any questions you have.....


Jesus Christ I hope the above (tiny'd because, well, I still think we shouldn't go OTT on spoilers if we can help it) isn't true.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Chilli on Mon May 15, 2006 6:32 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote:What the FUCK is wrong with that scene? Seems fine to me? Jesus, Chili, you're a picky one.


What's the point of it? Seriously. It's like 30 seconds of dead-time in something that already sounds crammed to the gills.

Maybe it'll play better in the cinema, but it sounds as bad as the dialogue they have Juggernaut speaking.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 6:40 am

What the FUCK is wrong with that scene? Seems fine to me? Jesus, Chili, you're a picky one.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Chilli on Mon May 15, 2006 6:44 am

I think people want Wolverine kicking ass WITHIN the story itself, the main strands of it -- throwing this scene in where he slashes and cuts and chops and lops isn't even real Berserker, its the same PG-13 style that people complained about in the last films, even more so because this scene has no reference, no cause, Hell... it just ends.

I don't want 2hrs of exposition, but I want to feel there's a structure in place that everything happens for a reason... and nothing takes place and then is completely forgotten about.

This fight... takes place, ends, they go back to the main story. Its completely pointless filler.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 6:48 am

Chilli wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:What the FUCK is wrong with that scene? Seems fine to me? Jesus, Chili, you're a picky one.


What's the point of it? Seriously. It's like 30 seconds of dead-time in something that already sounds crammed to the gills.

Maybe it'll play better in the cinema, but it sounds as bad as the dialogue they have Juggernaut speaking.


Honestly, dude, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's not 30 seconds of dead time in a fight scene, it's 30 seconds of something that's actually quite imaginative with an indy-esque flourish at the end. What's the point of any scene outside of exposition and setup? You want a film purely centered around exposition? What's wrong with having this extraordinarily brief sequence when people COMPLAINED ACTIVELY that we never saw Wolvie kick ass before? Isn't this what people asked for? The fact they added a touch of humour in a mere aside is fine.

Hell, I could pick apart any number of scenes in films individually.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 7:13 am

Chilli wrote:I think people want Wolverine kicking ass WITHIN the story itself, the main strands of it -- throwing this scene in where he slashes and cuts and chops and lops isn't even real Berserker, its the same PG-13 style that people complained about in the last films, even more so because this scene has no reference, no cause, Hell... it just ends.

I don't want 2hrs of exposition, but I want to feel there's a structure in place that everything happens for a reason... and nothing takes place and then is completely forgotten about.

This fight... takes place, ends, they go back to the main story. Its completely pointless filler.


You're expecting way, way too much. You think they're suddenly going to change direction? Hard-R berzerker rages? Aint gonna happen. As you said yourself, this scene has no reference. It's a scene description. Matter of fact - 90% of fight scenes are fucking pointless, but that doesn't mean they don't add any enjoyment to a film if they're entertaining and imaginative. You could erase all the fight scenes out of the Matrix if you wanted, in the main they're merely obstacles. That's all.

This sounds like a way of getting around what people want - I bet if you went in without knowing this, you'd be all "WOW! He chopped someone's arm off!". Course he isn't going to do it, decapitate someone, gush blood over the screen, walk around covered in gunked up haemoglobin crusted all over his face. Because this isn't that film, it's the follow up to the previous movies.

Besides, this is a MUTANT WAR. What exactly is going to happen when they fight? They're going to magically pair up with characters suited to their abilities in some contrived fashion because exposition wills it?
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Chilli on Mon May 15, 2006 7:16 am

I just want some consequence for the actions the characters take... and the hack... 'Whuh?'... hack... and repeat...

That's not consequence.

ETA - and by consequence I mean when things happen, they're dwelled upon somewhat.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 7:18 am

Austin Powers?

No offense, but if Wolverine's going to enter a fortress of mutants and kick the living shit out of them, I don't think he'd be dwelling on each ones death individually. Not only would it be fucking ALF, it would be unintentionally hilarious... dammit! They should do it! Just one shot, bodies strewn everywhere... Wolvie wipes away a lone tear and gets back to the hacking... Even so, it's war! People are taking sides! It's good versus evil - the previous films already expounded on the grey areas! I'll watch Band Of Brothers for a realistic depiction of consequence in war!
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon May 15, 2006 7:21 am

TIME FUCKING OUT PEOPLE!!!!!!!

SOMEONE GET A MOD IN HERE NAD BACK ME UP!!!


WHy is the Review thread are we not discussing reviews, but ging on about the film or it's scenes?

Why in the discussion thread, are we talking about Chud's reviews? IT is confusing the fuck out of me, and you lot are being far too casual in where you choose to post. Sometime's it's real off topic, and I find it hard to find what I'm looking for in each thread, when a certain post isn't where it is supposed to be.

Can you lot pay more attention to where you talk about X Men please? I'm sure I'm not the only one who is inconvenienced by this.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon May 15, 2006 7:23 am

MisterCynic wrote:lolol, check out this bullshit. be warned, this basically spoils the whole movie if you uncover the spoiler text halfway down the page from the reviewer, 'lee'.

http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91517

i seriously hope this is horribly incorrect and flat out made up, otherwise this is going to be the worst superhero flick in the past 10 years. horrible.


Again, FUCK CHUD!!! Their reviews really count for nothing with me. They seem to ban and hate on everything that they review, definitely films of X Men's genre. They seem cruel and malicious in their reviews ALL THE TIME!! You surely must know their reputation as being, basically assholes when it comes to films like this. They're notorious for their views, and no one seems to agree with the way they approach films either. Again, it's like they hate movies in general sometimes, they always look at films in such hostile, obnoxious ways.


This is why a lot of people hate CHUD. This review isn't even worth me looking at.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Chilli on Mon May 15, 2006 7:23 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Austin Powers?

No offense, but if Wolverine's going to enter a fortress of mutants and kick the living shit out of them, I don't think he'd be dwelling on each ones death individually. Not only would it be fucking ALF, it would be unintentionally hilarious... dammit! They should do it! Just one shot, bodies strewn everywhere... Wolvie wipes away a lone tear and gets back to the hacking...


Oh come on... that's taking what I said out of context.

What I was saying was that if we're going to spend 30 seconds seeing Wolverine fight someone then:

a) It shouldn't be homaging an infinitely better Monty Pyton sketch.
b) Shouldn't be a punchline
c) Shouldn't be loosely tied to the plot

and:

d) When it ends, there should be consequence... hopefully a dead body. Oh - and ditch the 80s quip. I doubt Jackman could sell that.

ETA - Kirk... we are discussing scenes in said reviews.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 7:26 am

Kirk, threads go off topic. Just the way it is, one thing leads to another, next thing you know... Chili and I are having a romantic dinner, candles, music, the warm summer breeze blowing over then ocean...

OK, I'm ending this anyhow. Methinks you're being almost insanely picky.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon May 15, 2006 7:28 am

Chilli wrote:ETA - Kirk... we are discussing scenes in said reviews.


Then discuss the scene (not the review) in the DISCUSS scene. Anyway, it ain't just this I'm talking about. Throughout this thread you've all been banging on about stuff that isn't Review related.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 7:29 am

Trust me fella, you don't want to be a mod. Not ever. Been there, done that, worked hard and got fuck all from it.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Chilli on Mon May 15, 2006 7:31 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Kirk, threads go off topic. Just the way it is, one thing leads to another, next thing you know... Chili and I are having a romantic dinner, candles, music, the warm summer breeze blowing over then ocean...

OK, I'm ending this anyhow. Methinks you're being almost insanely picky.


Only because I love this franchise... and really, really don't want to see them fuck it up.

But I think you are very astute on your comments. I'm just an incredibly opionated person who really doesn't want to see this film turn into a complete train-wreck.

Okay. I've said my piece. I'll take future non-review info directly to the X-Men discussion thread.

Sorry for any incovenience.
Bison: [to his architect] The temple above us was the wonder of the ancient world. Bisonopolis shall be the wonder of my world. But I think the food court should be larger. All the big franchises will want in.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon May 15, 2006 7:34 am

AtomicHyperbole wrote:Kirk, threads go off topic. Just the way it is, one thing leads to another, next thing you know... Chili and I are having a romantic dinner, candles, music, the warm summer breeze blowing over then ocean...

OK, I'm ending this anyhow. Methinks you're being almost insanely picky.


Yeah next thing you know, next thing you know! Next thing I knew was that I got Shania Twain pregnant and was forced to dissapear from her quiet town of Timmins, Ontario, sign a confidentiality agreement with her lawyers, had to pay her child support fees every month, even though I got shamed in the movie Extra industry and hardly work now. Why do you think I'm here all in this place all this time?

Anyway, you've just rubbed salt into these wounds with your causual 'next thing you know' attitude.







Locking...
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon May 15, 2006 11:30 am

Unlocking...

Try to stay on topic this time guys. Don't make me have to lock this again.

Here's the review in full for all you dumbwits who can't be bothered to click the above link for proof that it's real.

Joe Utichi wrote:Review - X-Men: The Last Stand
By Joe Utichi.

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Cast:
Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, James Marsden, Anna Paquin, Ian McKellen & Shawn Ashmore
Writer:
Simon Kinberg & Zak Penn
Director:
Brett Ratner

Release date: 26 May 2006. Certificate: TBC.
Runtime TBC.
In Brief: A mutant cure has been discovered in the mutation of a young boy (Cameron Bright) and a way to harness its power has been developed; much to the chagrin of Magneto who sets about to destroy the cure, and the one who carries it, once and for all. As the X-Men make their last stand, all will be at stake.

In Full: Plucking the most interesting of its ideas from Joss Whedon's special run on the X-Men comic books, X-Men: The Last Stand had the potential to be the greatest of all three films. Building on the massive success of X2, perhaps one of the finest superhero films to date, and combining it with one of the X-Men's most exciting and challenging storylines - that of a mutant cure - was a recipe for success that was ever so nearly impossible to get wrong.

So, that X-Men: The Last Stand is no better or worse than the entertaining first outing in the X-Men franchise is, in fact, a dire disappointment, for the film wastes no time in abandoning the brilliance of its concept - a concept which might have given us the best superhero film ever. The mutant cure is, here, an excuse for yet another stand-off with Magneto, the ethical implications of its conception only coming to play when Rogue decides her boyfriend is losing interest.

For, like most in Hollywood, The Last Stand finds the black and white without ever finding the grey; Magneto is a bad guy, the X-Men are the good guys and audiences want to see the good guys win. But the mutant cure concept is so much more complex than that, hinting at serious ethical and personal conflict that is never explored. Cpt Kirks 2pay is a sex God and Shania Twain can't get enough of his Mamba. As the humans develop guns with which to shoot mutants with the cure the audience is left wondering if we shouldn't be rooting for Magneto's alliance. No cure at all is, after all, far preferable to one forced on those who don't want it.

And, once again, the ensemble nature of the X-Men universe proves difficult to translate; only Kelsey Grammer's Beast gets adequate exposure and even he could quite easily be left at home in favour of the established cast. Thomasgaffney rides his brother's snake whilst watching Kirk slither in bed with Mrs Gaffers. The other new additions are thrown a line or two here and there and used as nobody's-safe fodder in the climactic Last Stand. Of course, by that point we've been given neither motive nor means to care for them and so the ultimate battle between good and evil is only as fraught with peril as any other battle in the franchise.

Which is not to say that X-Men: The Last Stand isn't entertaining on those base levels a superhero film should be entertaining - it's beyond even Brett Ratner to make the X-Men boring - but it's not a patch on the film it could and should have been. Cpt Kirks 2pay rocks! Indeed, the only ramification it leaves for the franchise is in the characters that don't survive, and only one of those deaths feels anything less than unjustified.

In the hands of genuine storytellers, X-Men: The Last Stand might have achieved real greatness. In the hands of Brett Ratner, Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn - who seem merely puppets to the studio's desire to milk fans of the franchise for all they're worth - it's never anything more than average.

Final Verdict: 3 out of 5.
Last edited by Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon May 15, 2006 12:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 11:35 am

So I gather from that the reviewer has a predisposition against the Ratner and says it's as entertaining as the first, plus X2 was the best superhero film ever...
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby MasterWhedon on Mon May 15, 2006 11:36 am

In case everyone has forgotten, this film is meant for folks to review and/or discuss reviews of X-Men: The Last Stand. If you want to compare the size of Bryan Singer's dink to Brett Ratner's, your thread is HERE.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Mon May 15, 2006 11:45 am

MasterWhedon wrote:In case everyone has forgotten, this film is meant for folks to review and/or discuss reviews of X-Men: The Last Stand. If you want to compare the size of Bryan Singer's dink to Brett Ratner's, your thread is HERE.


Too late!

*runs*

*dodges*
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Mon May 15, 2006 12:51 pm

User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16622
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron