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 RogueScribner on Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:22 pm

My blow-by-blow review:

The "20 years ago" opening was interesting. I did notice how Patrick Stewart did look a lot like his younger self in his ST:TNG days. It was uncanny. The job on Ian McKellan was a bit weird. He seemed to fluctuate between looking believably younger and looking like he had a bad face lift. But it wasn't too distracting, just certain shots. I like how they established Jean's power right from the outset and also reminded us of Charles' and Eric's former relationship. It was a nice scene.

The "10 years ago" bit serves to establish Angel as a character and the need of his father to find a cure. I get that, but considering what a nonentity Angel was in this movie, it's like a bunch of set up with no pay off. It would have been cool if Angel was like Nightcrawler was in the last film: a new mutant introduced that has an actual arc and impacts the events of the movie. Angel impacted nothing, save the initial catalyst to create a cure. What a waste.

Then we move on to the Danger Room sequence. There were some good bits here, but I still think the fastball special was clunky and Wolverine walking out from behind the giant metal head makes no logical sense. Wolverine also seemed a little too cavalier in this scene, but then maybe that's because there are safeguards in place so no one was in any real danger. But then, why call it the Danger Room? :P

Then we meet up with Scott, who you know is going all dark and moody because he hasn't shaved and his hair isn't combed. He still wears wickedly stylish glasses, however. :) Still, it was an interesting idea to show a broken Scott Summers, but then he's disposed of pretty quickly by Jean. I don't mind so much that Scott was killed off, but there didn't seem to be any weight to his death. His death was off screen and it was barely referenced or acknowledged later in the film. No tears for Scott Summers, I guess.

Then we meet Beast who started off okay. He's a big blue furball. The mutant cure idea is a good one and I like Beast's expression as he contemplates the ramifications of what that means. However, I was fully aware that I was watching Kelsey Grammer in every scene. I couldn't help but think of Beast as a blue mutant Frasier Crane, just less g@y. When he actually leaped into action at the end, it was pretty cool. I liked his acrobatics.

So Mystique has been captured by the government and is locked up in a mobile prison. Magneto stops the convoy in a pretty cool display of force. He frees Mystique and releases Multiple Man and Juggernaut. Anyway, all is well except--oh snap!--Mystique gets nailed by a cure gun. I really liked Magneto's initial reaction to this event, but then it's like a switch is thrown and he no longer cares for her and he walks away. I don't doubt that he would suddenly think less of her, but . . . I don't know. It seemed odd, wrong even, how it was played considering their relationship in the past two films. The only reason it seemed to exist was so Mystique could later betray Magneto. I still can't figure if that was an honest betrayal or not. Maybe it was and Magneto was too smart to stay where he knew he could be found, or maybe she deliberately led the military astray to give Magneto time to wage his assault. Either way seems wacky, but I guess an honest betrayal seems less so. I still find it hard to believe Magneto would act so unsympathetically towards her, however. Their relationship seemed deeper than that.

So news of the cure spreads and this interests Rogue. What kind of peeved me was Storm's comment to Rogue that being a mutant is not a disease and they don't need cured. Well fuck you, Storm! You can manipulate the weather! You can pass for normal if you so wished! You don't look blue or have weird growths or suck the life out of people every time you touch them! Storm seemed really passionately ignorant with that comment.

The Wolverine/Jean scene at the mansion was interesting, but again, Scott is barely mentioned. And even when it's determined that Jean killed him, no one seems to broken up about it. So we quickly move to Jean's childhood home where she sits and broods. Magneto and Xavier both arrive to make a play for her. So a fight ultimately breaks out and moves inside and lots of shit gets thrown around and Jean gets upset and kills Xavier. It was a pretty powerful scene and I liked the fact that Magneto was upset over Charles' death. I don't really get why Jean simply walked off with Magneto however, but whatever. At least people reacted to Xavier's death which for the first time added some emotional weight to the movie.

We get some small bits with Rogue, Bobby, and Kitty throughout all of this. I don't really have much of an opinion on Kitty one way or the other. She was pretty much a nonentity as far as I'm concerned, just someone to force some conflict between Rogue and Bobby and then later to save Cure Boy. I wish Bobby made more of an effort to appease Rogue, but he didn't really seem too concerned for her except when he thought to be. It was a nice gesture to look for her at the cure lines, though. You knew after the last movie there'd be an Ice Man vs Pyro showdown and the seed of it was planted in this scene. This is also where I began to shake my head at the caricature of Pyro they were presenting. Where is the logical emotional and moral progression from the last movie to this one? Pyro was a stereotypical bad guy in this movie. He didn't seem anything like he was in the last movie. He was a little bit of a loose cannon in the last movie and he also was a bit selfish, but not evil. The comments he made about Rogue and Bobby in this movie seemed out of place and his desire to cause them harm also seemed out of place. In fact, the thing that really pissed me off was his comment to Magneto that he would have killed Xavier if Magneto had asked him to. Who the fuck is this kid? He went from rogue to evil in 3.2 seconds. I'm glad at least Magneto had the sense to put him in his place. If they played Pyro a bit more real then the conflict between him and Bobby would have been more compelling. As it was, there was no emotional weight to their fight at all. It was just a cool ice vs. fire scene.

So Wolverine goes to the woods and finds Jean. Jean just stands around looking stoic. Magneto opens a can of whoopass on Wolverine and then Wolverine decides it's time to enlist some help and fight a war. So we move into the third act where Magneto does the impossible (and improbable) and rips the Golden Gate Bridge to shreds to transport his army to Alcatraz. First of all, is he really that powerful? That's the biggest display of power I've seen from him yet. If he could do that, he could level buildings, decimate cities, anything. Why does he need Jean's help? And where is the logic in moving the bridge like that? Why wouldn't he just get a big boat or something and transport his army over to the island, where no one could follow? Logic flies out the window for a cool FX shot. Admittedly it was cool, but my suspension of disbelief was horribly shattered in that scene.

The fight(s) at Alcatraz were okay for the most part. I dug Magneto's reaction to realizing the army weaponized the cure. All the X-Men had some cool stuff to do in this scene, except for Collusus who seemed to get lost in the shuffle. Wolverine decides to fight dirty to take down Magneto. I'm glad they showed some struggle in his face beforehand. If he had simply jumped into action with no thought of the implications of what he was doing, I'm pretty sure I would have left the theater. Magneto's reaction was priceless (how many times have I mentioned Magneto in this review?). But the real coolness came when Jean finally decided to do something. Death, death everywhere! And I dug Wolverine's determination to get to her, though I have to question the rate of his healing as we've seen far less assault take him down, but whatever, it made for a cool scene so I'll let it slide. :)

So the day is saved and all is forgiven apparently. Beast is an ambassador, the school is reopened, Rogue can touch Bobby, and Magneto plays chess. The metal chess piece starts to wiggle. Cue credits. Cue add on clip where we discover Xavier is not dead. So really, only Scott gets shafted. They milk the death/cure of Xavier and Magneto but Scott gets the short end of the stick in every respect. Hell, I wasn't even that big of a fan of Cyclops in these movies but I still think his character got a raw deal. And the last movie to a lesser extent. Is Cyclops such a hard character to write for? Could not 30 seconds of film have been spent for the core X-Men to react to Scott's death when they first learned of it? Everyone just took it in stride. Oy.

In all the scenes I mentioned, there was good and bad. The net effect is that the movie seems to have sacrificed character development for special effects and I'm really disappointed by that fact. It's not a bad movie, but it wasn't the greatness it should have been.
Last edited by RogueScribner on Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9607
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:25 pm

so sorry wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Bean wrote:Just remembered a question, at the last scene with Xavier in the brainless body, how does he know that doctor? How does she know him? WHO IS SHE!?!?


Moira Mctaggart is in the comics, I believe she is involved with Angle somehow (but that's from the cartoon I think) anyway, she's an old friend of Xavier's


The other problem with that scene is Xavier really doesn't seem like the kind of person who would think it was ethical to transfer his consciousness to someone elses body.


i think anybody's ethics take a backseat when faced with dying!



Hehe, you are right of course. I just wasn't sure why the brought up the whole ethical issue in the first place.
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 raasnio on Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:48 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
so sorry wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Bean wrote:Just remembered a question, at the last scene with Xavier in the brainless body, how does he know that doctor? How does she know him? WHO IS SHE!?!?


Moira Mctaggart is in the comics, I believe she is involved with Angle somehow (but that's from the cartoon I think) anyway, she's an old friend of Xavier's


The other problem with that scene is Xavier really doesn't seem like the kind of person who would think it was ethical to transfer his consciousness to someone elses body.


i think anybody's ethics take a backseat when faced with dying!



Hehe, you are right of course. I just wasn't sure why the brought up the whole ethical issue in the first place.


He just posed the question to the class. He never said what his opinion on it was. Since the person had no consciousness/self it seemed fine by me. :D
Image
User avatar
raasnio
CHEETS ON HIS WIFE
 
Posts: 392
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:04 pm

Postby danger99 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:59 pm

New here, just wanted to drop my two cents. I did not like the flim to much
danger99
GLIB
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:56 pm

Postby Bob Samonkey on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:01 pm

Welcome and I agree, but I thought it was alright. Still liked the others better though
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby danger99 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:03 pm

so does everyone blaim ratner
danger99
GLIB
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:56 pm

Postby Bob Samonkey on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:05 pm

I blame a rushed movie. The Rat could not help a limping project
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby MasterWhedon on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:05 pm

danger99 wrote:New here, just wanted to drop my two cents. I did not like the flim to much

Welcome to the Zone. Care to elaborate?
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:19 pm

Hmm, how much do I blame Ratner??? It's hard to say. Certainly the shots were competent, the editing was good, the action was also pretty good, but nothing innovative really.I really wanted something like Magneto's escape in X2, a scene that showed powers being used in a jaw dropping way. Sure the golden gate bridge was like that, but only by virtue of it being HUGE not by being radical or original, I think that lack was also Ratner's fault. The pacing was terrible and I think that is Ratner's fault, same with the lack of tension. I don't know if large chunks of Angel were cut (pun not intended) or whether that's all their was to it but if it's a decision by Ratner to cut him out then it was a bad one. And stuff like "I'm the juggernaut bitch" was hamfisted wank I have to blame Ratner for either putting it in or leaving it in.as
But the worst thing I can say about Ratner was his lack of cofidence in the quiet moments, he was too worried his audience would get bored and that to me shows a kinda of immaturity...perhaps that's too harsh a word but nothing else springs to mind right now. Like I said earlier, the story feels like a series of beats that have to be covered to get to the action. It was a bad script, a rushed production and a bad director. Maybe with one or two of those you can get away with it. But all three? The film didn't stand a chance.
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 Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:24 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:No offense fella, but thank god they didn't have that contrived plot device in there... one thing I was glad of was that completely logic defying piece of technology taking a back seat...



Yeh having something in the film that is able to locate mutants, terribly contrived. Thank god they didn't have have anything like that in X3


Oh hang on....




















They did.


Within the logic of the Singer universe, sixth sense is far more plausible than some incredibly high tech machine thats light years in front of feasability. I s'pose when you aim for realism the absurdity sticks out more. Something I never cared for about X1 and X2.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:29 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Hmm, how much do I blame Ratner??? It's hard to say. Certainly the shots were competent, the editing was good, the action was also pretty good, but nothing innovative really.I really wanted something like Magneto's escape in X2, a scene that showed powers being used in a jaw dropping way. Sure the golden gate bridge was like that, but only by virtue of it being HUGE not by being radical or original, I think that lack was also Ratner's fault. The pacing was terrible and I think that is Ratner's fault, same with the lack of tension. I don't know if large chunks of Angel were cut (pun not intended) or whether that's all their was to it but if it's a decision by Ratner to cut him out then it was a bad one. And stuff like "I'm the juggernaut bitch" was hamfisted wank I have to blame Ratner for either putting it in or leaving it in.as
But the worst thing I can say about Ratner was his lack of cofidence in the quiet moments, he was too worried his audience would get bored and that to me shows a kinda of immaturity...perhaps that's too harsh a word but nothing else springs to mind right now. Like I said earlier, the story feels like a series of beats that have to be covered to get to the action. It was a bad script, a rushed production and a bad director. Maybe with one or two of those you can get away with it. But all three? The film didn't stand a chance.


Bear in mind a lot of us liked it, matey. This film is definite 50/50 stuff.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Bob Samonkey on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:33 pm

TonyWilson wrote: And stuff like "I'm the juggernaut bitch" was hamfisted wank I have to blame Ratner for either putting it in or leaving it in.


Oh come on! That was gold. The only thing that could have made it better is if they would have gone on with that joke for like 9 min like they do in that video on the net.
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:33 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:No offense fella, but thank god they didn't have that contrived plot device in there... one thing I was glad of was that completely logic defying piece of technology taking a back seat...



Yeh having something in the film that is able to locate mutants, terribly contrived. Thank god they didn't have have anything like that in X3


Oh hang on....




















They did.


Within the logic of the Singer universe, sixth sense is far more plausible than some incredibly high tech machine thats light years in front of feasability. I s'pose when you aim for realism the absurdity sticks out more. Something I never cared for about X1 and X2.


I know what you mean AH, but contrived is contrived. What about the X-Wing? Or more appropriately for x3 the danger room. A machine that telepaths can harness to increase their power or hard light holograms? It's all fanciful science fiction.
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 Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:35 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:H mm, how much do I blame Ratner??? It's hard to say. Certainly the shots were competent, the editing was good, the action was also pretty good, but nothing innovative really.I really wanted something like Magneto's escape in X2, a scene that showed powers being used in a jaw dropping way. Sure the golden gate bridge was like that, but only by virtue of it being HUGE not by being radical or original, I think that lack was also Ratner's fault. The pacing was terrible and I think that is Ratner's fault, same with the lack of tension. I don't know if large chunks of Angel were cut (pun not intended) or whether that's all their was to it but if it's a decision by Ratner to cut him out then it was a bad one. And stuff like "I'm the juggernaut bitch" was hamfisted wank I have to blame Ratner for either putting it in or leaving it in.as
But the worst thing I can say about Ratner was his lack of cofidence in the quiet moments, he was too worried his audience would get bored and that to me shows a kinda of immaturity...perhaps that's too harsh a word but nothing else springs to mind right now. Like I said earlier, the story feels like a series of beats that have to be covered to get to the action. It was a bad script, a rushed production and a bad director. Maybe with one or two of those you can get away with it. But all three? The film didn't stand a chance.


Bear in mind a lot of us liked it, matey. This film is definite 50/50 stuff.



Oh I've read the reviews in here and elsewhere and it's definite 50/50, we can only give our individual opinions though.
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 Leckomaniac on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:38 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:No offense fella, but thank god they didn't have that contrived plot device in there... one thing I was glad of was that completely logic defying piece of technology taking a back seat...



Yeh having something in the film that is able to locate mutants, terribly contrived. Thank god they didn't have have anything like that in X3


Oh hang on....




















They did.


Within the logic of the Singer universe, sixth sense is far more plausible than some incredibly high tech machine thats light years in front of feasability. I s'pose when you aim for realism the absurdity sticks out more. Something I never cared for about X1 and X2.


I know what you mean AH, but contrived is contrived. What about the X-Wing? Or more appropriately for x3 the danger room. A machine that telepaths can harness to increase their power or hard light holograms? It's all fanciful science fiction.


Excellent point Tony. I was just about to post something about the Danger Room but you beat me to it.
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby AtomicHyperbole on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:41 pm

I'd take the danger room over the mutant blob in X1 anyday... X1's ending never fails to amaze me...
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby MasterWhedon on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:42 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Bear in mind a lot of us liked it, matey. This film is definite 50/50 stuff.



Oh I've read the reviews in here and elsewhere and it's definite 50/50, we can only give our individual opinions though.

See, I don't think it's necessarily a 50/50 thing. That, to me, implies a movie that some folks just don't "get," or one that folks either LOVE of HATE. Most of us who loved this movie did so, admittedly, despite its rather apparent flaws. Those who disliked it still pick out elements that they liked a good deal (for the most part).

No one should be claiming here that Ratner is the second coming of the filmmaking God, nor that X3 is the best film since whatever you consider to be a great film, nor vice versa of both--all three are just not true.

Could X3 have been a better film? Yes. Could it have been worse? Yes. Both "sides" should be able to agree on those two points, regardless of how you feel about the film.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Bob Samonkey on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:46 pm

Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:
TonyWilson wrote: And stuff like "I'm the juggernaut bitch" was hamfisted wank I have to blame Ratner for either putting it in or leaving it in.


Oh come on! That was gold. The only thing that could have made it better is if they would have gone on with that joke for like 9 min like they do in that video on the net.


Ooo and then Angel could have come on and started saying "So I've got wings, bitch"

That would have been so awesome...
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:46 pm

MasterWhedon wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:Bear in mind a lot of us liked it, matey. This film is definite 50/50 stuff.



Oh I've read the reviews in here and elsewhere and it's definite 50/50, we can only give our individual opinions though.

See, I don't think it's necessarily a 50/50 thing. That, to me, implies a movie that some folks just don't "get," or one that folks either LOVE of HATE. Most of us who loved this movie did so, admittedly, despite its rather apparent flaws. Those who disliked it still pick out elements that they liked a good deal (for the most part).

No one should be claiming here that Ratner is the second coming of the filmmaking God, nor that X3 is the best film since whatever you consider to be a great film, nor vice versa of both--all three are just not true.

Could X3 have been a better film? Yes. Could it have been worse? Yes. Both "sides" should be able to agree on those two points, regardless of how you feel about the film.



Shit man, I'm trying to find common ground with AH here, quit ruining it :cry: :wink:

But yes, it's not the worst film ever made or even the worst superhero movie ever made.
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 Pacino86845 on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:48 pm

Bob Poopflingius Maximus wrote:Ooo and then Angel could have come on and started saying "So I've got wings, bitch"

That would have been so awesome...

Yeah, like every character should have had a go at Kitty Pryde!!

"I'm the Beast, bitch!"

"I'm Magneto!! I put the neat-o back in magnets, bitch!"
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby MasterWhedon on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:50 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Shit man, I'm trying to find common ground with AH here, quit ruining it :cry: :wink:

But yes, it's not the worst film ever made or even the worst superhero movie ever made.

I just want you two to be friends...

Image

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

Postby MasterWhedon on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:51 pm

Pacino86845 wrote:"I'm Magneto!! I put the neat-o back in magnets, bitch!"

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

Postby The Ginger Man on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:51 pm

Don't worry everybody. I'm finally going to see this thing either tonight or tomorrow night...so I'll be able to weigh in with my opinion. Then, once and for all, you'll all know how you really feel about the movie. :mrgreen:
The Ginger Man
Hong Kong Drizzle
 
Posts: 2883
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:35 am

Postby doglips on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:52 pm

So Tony, in essence, is X3 Meh/Cinema or bollocks/DVD?

I have to know.
User avatar
doglips
MOD FAIRY
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:08 am

Postby Flumm on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:56 pm

MasterWhedon wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:Shit man, I'm trying to find common ground with AH here, quit ruining it :cry: :wink:

But yes, it's not the worst film ever made or even the worst superhero movie ever made.

I just want you two to be friends...

Image

So difficult...


Cmon, guys calm down! Take a breather. Gees, not everyone types as fast you as AH...


OK, that was a pretty weak joke, wedged in at a fairly awkward angle too, I admitt it, but it was a joke nonetheless, not a gulp o haterade, just to make that clear... anyway... uh, play on!
Last edited by Flumm on Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Flumm
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5601
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Yesteryonder

Postby Leckomaniac on Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:59 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:I'd take the danger room over the mutant blob in X1 anyday... X1's ending never fails to amaze me...


I'll have to agree with you there. I can forgive the blob because I always felt that X1 had some of the greatest character work in the entire series.
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:02 pm

thedoglippedone wrote:So Tony, in essence, is X3 Meh/Cinema or bollocks/DVD?

I have to know.




Aaaaargh....this is kinda tough. I think cinema, the Bridge scene is very cool when you see it on a big screen...but then there were times when I could have stopped the film to go get a cup of tea and come back to it later on...I'm not really being much help here.

Right on purely monetary terms..

If it costs you a fiver for the cinema and 3 quid for the DVD, spend the extra 2 quid and go see it on a big screen.
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 doglips on Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:04 pm

Meh it is then.
User avatar
doglips
MOD FAIRY
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:08 am

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:04 pm

Leckomaniac wrote:
AtomicHyperbole wrote:I'd take the danger room over the mutant blob in X1 anyday... X1's ending never fails to amaze me...


I'll have to agree with you there. I can forgive the blob because I always felt that X1 had some of the greatest character work in the entire series.



Yeh I forgive the blob cus the rest is so nicely played. But I think the original point was what was more beliavable...and neither are.
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 Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:36 pm

Movie world rulebreakers are always going to be a contentious issue. I find the mutant power angle easy to swallow, and almost wish Singer had the guts to leave out the blob and the Cerebro device. Complaining about the Danger room's contrivance seems almost petty seeing as its been set up through the other films. I guess within the overtly cartoon manner of the third film such things became forgiveable for me, because it was unashamed in its execution. Whilst I really enjoyed X2, X1 felt like the opposite of X3 to me. Singer revelled in the characters but the rest seemed incredibly flat by comparasion, so I couldn't buy into the universe quite as much. By being so forward in its broad action strokes and cartoony feel, X3 felt more successful as a comic book film. Sure, some stuff was glossed over, but there was depth there, as proven by the UK Zoners avid discussion about the various themes and actions by the characters after the movie.

X1 and X3 are polar opposites to me. I loved Mystiques execution in X1, I loved the interplay between Xavier and Magneto, I enjoyed the idea, although not the execution, of the conflict felt in Rogue. But it was an extremely muddy film with very little confidence in its own ideas. Whereas it was neat to have Cyclop's little aside to Wolverine about yellow spandex this remark actually highlighted some discomfort in pulp roots and seemed undecided as to whether to go in a comic-book direction or stay with two feet firmly on the ground.

Cerebro, the plane, the blob... it all felt tacky compared to the realistic setup. It also had a very chapterlike structure which did it no favours.

The second managed to avoid this by having a better structure and concentrate thoroughly on the characters, without going into areas where the universe's rules felt like they were being stretched too far. Stuff like Cerebro, because of its intergral nature to the plot, became more forgiveable to me. Singer didn't seem to be ashamed of letting loose a bit more. But despite this, for me, it occasionally felt stretched and episodic... certainly most of the bang was at the beginning of the film rather than the end, and Jeans sudden departure from the rest of the group felt as contrived as anything in X3.

X3 I know has its faults. They're myriad and discussed on this very page. But... it never felt ashamed of being a comic book film and although it had tons of loose ends, its pace cracked along so it didn't seem to matter. Unlike X2 it didn't have much to mull over and things broke down afterwards when tlaking about them, but it had a spirit,
an energy to it which made up for some of its messiness. It's not a good a film to me as X2 by any stretch, but in terms of world building its cartoon nature made its discrepencies far, far more forgiveable than in X1. X1 felt like half a movie. I still can't understand why some hold it in high regard... believe me, I've tried with it. X3 may not be a work of high art, but it really hit the spot and let loose a bunch on what had been crafted before.

If anything, if the energy of X3 can be combined with the pathos of X2 and melded to a structure that doesn't feel so ambiguous, then that'd be the ultimate superhero film. For me anyhow.
Image
User avatar
AtomicHyperbole
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7438
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:30 am

Postby Shane on Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:54 pm

AtomicHyperbole wrote:
But... it never felt ashamed of being a comic book film and although it had tons of loose ends, its pace cracked along so it didn't seem to matter. Unlike X2 it didn't have much to mull over and things broke down afterwards when tlaking about them, but it had a spirit,
an energy to it which made up for some of its messiness. It's not a good a film to me as X2 by any stretch, but in terms of world building its cartoon nature made its discrepencies far, far more forgiveable than in X1. X1 felt like half a movie. I still can't understand why some hold it in high regard... believe me, I've tried with it. X3 may not be a work of high art, but it really hit the spot and let loose a bunch on what had been crafted before.



It wasn't ashamed to be a comic film, and that's why I think I like it so much.

It was a step much closer to the book.

I saw it again today, and still loved it.

I love comic films more the second time around when I'm over my initial excitment and shock.
User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby RogueScribner on Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:39 pm

danger99 wrote:so does everyone blaim ratner



I do not blame Ratner. I blame Fox for making a release date more important than the quality of the film. I blame the producers for not pushing the writers for a better script. And I blame Singer for jumping ship just when things were getting interesting. As far as I can tell, Ratner did the best he could with the material he was given. I do not believe he's capable of elevating material, so if it's not on the page, we're not going to get it. It's not really a knock against Ratner though. Not too many directors can make a great movie out of so-so material.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9607
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:56 pm

I don't think X3 has a more cartoon manner really.

What's more cartoony or comic book like in X3 than the other films?

I watched x2 recently and really can't remember the danger room being pointed out. It's been a while since x1 though.
I guess I just don't understand the complaints about cerebro or the blob being too far fethced when you have a man who can control metal at will and a woman who can control the weather because of a mutation.
Finally getting the danger room was a plus point for me about x3.
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 Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:02 pm

Cartoony aspects....

Well for starters we saw the x-men assemble and line up all over dramaticly just like in a comic. Singer never gave us that, FF gave us more of that.

The plot with the cure was straight out of Astonishing X-men.

Killing characters and resurecting them.

The fastball special.

Brief sentinel camio.
User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby Leckomaniac on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:08 pm

Shane wrote:Cartoony aspects....

Well for starters we saw the x-men assemble and line up all over dramaticly just like in a comic. Singer never gave us that, FF gave us more of that.

The plot with the cure was straight out of Astonishing X-men.

Killing characters and resurecting them.

The fastball special.

Brief sentinel camio.


I don't think anyone said that X3 didn't have cartoony aspects...the question is do you think X3 was more cartoony than X2?
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:11 pm

Shane wrote:Cartoony aspects....

Well for starters we saw the x-men assemble and line up all over dramaticly just like in a comic. Singer never gave us that, FF gave us more of that.

The plot with the cure was straight out of Astonishing X-men.

Killing characters and resurecting them.

The fastball special.

Brief sentinel camio.


Hmm, I see how there's specific things from the comics brought in to the film. Like the cure idea and the fastball special, but the film is still played in the same serious realistic tone as the other 2. If it isn't then it's a complete disservice to the preceding films.


I mean, either the films stand as they are, a trilogy telling one particular x-men universe story, or, we compare them to the comics in which case dark phoenix got ruined, cyclops got screwed over, the costumes are wrong, and all the other complaints people were having.
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 Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:16 pm

Ribbons wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I watched x2 recently and really can't remember the danger room being pointed out.


It's not, but if you look closely, there's a circle-shaped door with an X on it, right next to Cerebro I think, that says "Danger." Singer and Co. planned on shooting a sequence in the Danger Room (if you read Mori's script review you'll know what I mean) but had to cut it due to budgetary constraints (in other words, Rothman and Singer got into a pissing contest about the budget).



Cheers Ribbons I'll go check that out.

But then, if the danger room is alluded to in the first 2 films, why is cerebro or the blob thing so hard to believe? Like I said before Hard light holograms and machines that enchance a pyschics power are just as unrealistic as each other.
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 Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:18 pm

I only complain that it wasn't long enough. It needed another half hour, and I think everyone agrees that that could have helped the film.

I still loved it and loved the more comic elements.

Even if Iceman's ice form was fake looking, I loved seeing it, and it was more realistic than a cartoon jack nicholson Joker falling to his death, or the cartoon batman stalking on the two guys on the roof in the same film.
User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby RogueScribner on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:18 pm

There was a shift in the dynamics of the story in the third installment. The first movie was very character-centric and when it tried to give us the cool action bits, well, they were more tacky than anything. The second movie I believe was even more character-centric than the first, but it also upped the ante with the action. The opening scene with Nightcrawler is a feast for the eyes. The raid on the school, the showdown at Bobby's house, the fighter jet chase, Wolverine vs. Deathstryke, Cyclops vs. Jean, Magneto vs. everybody, the damn breaking . . . it was all good stuff. The third movie dropped the ball considerably when it came to the characters. Cyclops was quickly disposed of with nary an impact on the story or reactions by any characters. Wolverine, Magneto, Mystique, Pyro, and Xavier all had moments that didn't ring true for them. There were flashes of dramatic weight to the film, but it was mostly filler and spectacle. Sure, a lot of the action was cool and interesting, but what did it ultimately mean? It was a primarily vapid experience because while people are getting injurred or killed left and right in this movie, frankly, I didn't really care (and neither did a lot of the characters). I wasn't looking for high art, but the first two films established a precedent in how this franchise is going to deal with its characters and I don't feel the new movie followed through fully.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9607
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby MasterWhedon on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:20 pm

TonyWilson wrote:But then, if the danger room is alluded to in the first 2 films, why is cerebro or the blob thing so hard to believe? Like I said before Hard light holograms and machines that enchance a pyschics power are just as unrealistic as each other.

See, I have a harder time accepting the hard light hologram than I do Cerebro. I buy that an incredibly powerful psychic with money to spare might be able to develop a way to amplify his powers. With training, I can go with the idea that he can do much of what he did in X2 (though I still think it went a little far for credibility's sake).

I like the Danger Room sequence, I just wonder if it couldn't have worked with advanced machines and such, a la the original incarnations in the comics.

But, really, I could care less. Wait for my remakes in 29 years, 11 months and 24 days...
Last edited by MasterWhedon on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Leckomaniac on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:21 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I watched x2 recently and really can't remember the danger room being pointed out.


It's not, but if you look closely, there's a circle-shaped door with an X on it, right next to Cerebro I think, that says "Danger." Singer and Co. planned on shooting a sequence in the Danger Room (if you read Mori's script review you'll know what I mean) but had to cut it due to budgetary constraints (in other words, Rothman and Singer got into a pissing contest about the budget).



Cheers Ribbons I'll go check that out.

But then, if the danger room is alluded to in the first 2 films, why is cerebro or the blob thing so hard to believe? Like I said before Hard light holograms and machines that enchance a pyschics power are just as unrealistic as each other.


I completely agree with you Tony. In a universe where a man can have adamantium (a near indestructible metal) attached to his skeleton...something like cerebro or the danger room or even sentinels seems plausible.
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Leckomaniac on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:23 pm

MasterWhedon wrote:But, really, I could care less. Wait for my remakes in 29 years, 11 months and 24 days...


I am counting down the days MW.

BRING ON CYCLOPS!

Any chance of Emma Frost in your movies MW?
User avatar
Leckomaniac
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 9:32 pm
Location: Chicago, IL

Postby Shane on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:25 pm

If you look back, Cyclops relly had small roles in all three films. I have no problem with the time he got in the movie. I would have liked more of Kitty, Colossus, Iceman, Pyro, Angel and Beast. They could have filled a half hour mor of the film with that.

Especially Kitty, I've always loved Kitty Pryde
User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:32 pm

RogueScribner wrote:There was a shift in the dynamics of the story in the third installment. The first movie was very character-centric and when it tried to give us the cool action bits, well, they were more tacky than anything. The second movie I believe was even more character-centric than the first, but it also upped the ante with the action. The opening scene with Nightcrawler is a feast for the eyes. The raid on the school, the showdown at Bobby's house, the fighter jet chase, Wolverine vs. Deathstryke, Cyclops vs. Jean, Magneto vs. everybody, the damn breaking . . . it was all good stuff. The third movie dropped the ball considerably when it came to the characters. Cyclops was quickly disposed of with nary an impact on the story or reactions by any characters. Wolverine, Magneto, Mystique, Pyro, and Xavier all had moments that didn't ring true for them. There were flashes of dramatic weight to the film, but it was mostly filler and spectacle. Sure, a lot of the action was cool and interesting, but what did it ultimately mean? It was a primarily vapid experience because while people are getting injurred or killed left and right in this movie, frankly, I didn't really care (and neither did a lot of the characters). I wasn't looking for high art, but the first two films established a precedent in how this franchise is going to deal with its characters and I don't feel the new movie followed through fully.



That's a good assesment I think Rogue. I didn't not like the 3rd film because it was more comicbookesque (because to my mind it wasn't). I didn't like it becuase...well of the reasons I gave in my review, none of which are anything to do with the film being more like a comic. And are all to do with it being rushed and having a bad script.
But this is the point I'm trying to make at the moment - all the films have a serious tone, the first 2 have wonderful character development the first has a few nice action beats but nothing special. The 2nd has very cool action and powers being used brilliantly. You can't excuse X3's problems by saying it was more like the comics, because either - a) it's problems have nohing to do with the comicbook elements. Or - b) if it is more comic book like it has missed the tone and ideas of the first 2 by a country mile and as such, is a poor addition to the trilogy. And if you go down that route it is also a shite attempt at making it nearer to the comics because elements like Phoenix and Cyclops are treated in a way that only makes sense in the context of the first two movies.



Hmmm...


Was that as convoluted as I thought it was???
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 Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:41 pm

Ribbons wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I watched x2 recently and really can't remember the danger room being pointed out.


It's not, but if you look closely, there's a circle-shaped door with an X on it, right next to Cerebro I think, that says "Danger." Singer and Co. planned on shooting a sequence in the Danger Room (if you read Mori's script review you'll know what I mean) but had to cut it due to budgetary constraints (in other words, Rothman and Singer got into a pissing contest about the budget).



Cheers Ribbons I'll go check that out.

But then, if the danger room is alluded to in the first 2 films, why is cerebro or the blob thing so hard to believe? Like I said before Hard light holograms and machines that enchance a pyschics power are just as unrealistic as each other.


Buh. I dunno. That weird mutant machine in the first one has always been a tough sell for me because I don't really know what the hell it does. You stand in there, a bunch of wheels spin, and then all of a sudden a cloud of white spaghetti turns everyone into mutants. I guess if you think about it you never really know what anything in the X-Universe does, but that one always stood out for some reason.

By the way, the word "Danger" on the door is really small, so you'll have to look closely.



Want to hear my crackpot theory on the mutant maker? Tough, I'm telling it anyway.

Electircal charges and magnets do weird things to the human body. There that's it. How fucking scientific eh?

And I was asking AH why he'll buy the danger room being in X2 but not cerebro when hardlight holograms are just as unrealistic, or even more unrealisitc than the cerebro machines.

Yes I've drank too much coffee.
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 Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:56 pm

Get half caff, I'm drinking it now.

Coffee enthusiasts unite!
User avatar
Shane
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 3:28 pm
Location: Kansas City

Postby nodforlife on Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:16 am

I have some questions after watching the movie, and I figured this is the best place to get 'em answered.

1. If Magneto had met Jean before, why didn't he ever mention it or act like it in the first two movies?

2. If Jean had this all-powerful hidden side, why was it never brought up in the first two movies?

3. When the X-Crew goes to Gene's old house, Magneto says 'Hello Charles' and Charles looks surprised. Wasn't Magneto just off camera, and wasn't his crew on the lawn of the house, in plain view of the X-Men's line of site? Is this a case of the characters only being able to see what the camera sees, a la the end of 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?'

4. In the first movie, Magneto was severely weakened by using the machine, but in the third he could move the entire Golden Gate Bridge without breaking a sweat. Huh?

5. Why did Magneto move the bridge anyway? Why couldn't Gene just levitate everyone over to Alcatraz?

6. Are we to believe that in an entire country of mutants, the only ones willing to fight to protect the cure are the X-men?

7. Why did Magneto need an army of mutants? Why didn't Gene just vaporize all the guards on the island single-handedly?

8. Why did Wolverine stab Gene with his claws? Why didn't he give her the cure?

9. What would happen if Wolverine got the cure? Would his mutant healing powers fight it?

10. Does that bald kid make mutant POWERS dissapear, not just in mutants, but altogether? For example, if Iceman shot an ice beam at him, would it disintagrate when it got within the bald kid's sphere of influence?

If any of you could answer these for me, I would greatly appreciate it. I think it's safe to say I left this film scratching my head.
nodforlife
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:08 am
Location: Sunny Los Angeles

Postby austenandrews on Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:29 am

nodforlife wrote:1. If Magneto had met Jean before, why didn't he ever mention it or act like it in the first two movies?

Why would he have mentioned it? In the first film Jean, Cyke and Storm had obviously dealt with him before.

2. If Jean had this all-powerful hidden side, why was it never brought up in the first two movies?

Because it had been neutralized for decades.

3. When the X-Crew goes to Gene's old house, Magneto says 'Hello Charles' and Charles looks surprised. Wasn't Magneto just off camera, and wasn't his crew on the lawn of the house, in plain view of the X-Men's line of site? Is this a case of the characters only being able to see what the camera sees, a la the end of 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?'

I don't remember him looking overly surprised. Could be a continuity error, though.

4. In the first movie, Magneto was severely weakened by using the machine, but in the third he could move the entire Golden Gate Bridge without breaking a sweat. Huh?

Apparently the Mutant Maker 3000 really takes it out of you.

5. Why did Magneto move the bridge anyway? Why couldn't Gene just levitate everyone over to Alcatraz?

Guess he wanted to have the cars handy as weapons.

6. Are we to believe that in an entire country of mutants, the only ones willing to fight to protect the cure are the X-men?

They're the only ones with a super-jet and organized enough to take quick action.

7. Why did Magneto need an army of mutants? Why didn't Gene just vaporize all the guards on the island single-handedly?

You don't nuke a site you want to plunder.

8. Why did Wolverine stab Gene with his claws? Why didn't he give her the cure?

Because she begged him to.

9. What would happen if Wolverine got the cure? Would his mutant healing powers fight it?

No. His hands would bleed when he popped out his claws.

10. Does that bald kid make mutant POWERS dissapear, not just in mutants, but altogether? For example, if Iceman shot an ice beam at him, would it disintagrate when it got within the bald kid's sphere of influence?

Logically, no. It's not like he ignored the mayhem when Kitty brought him out of the building. But in truth, probably yes, if it made a cool scene.
User avatar
austenandrews
SUSAN CAGLE
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:45 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Postby MasterWhedon on Fri Jun 02, 2006 2:36 am

All right, what the hell. I'll go into it...

nodforlife wrote:I have some questions after watching the movie, and I figured this is the best place to get 'em answered.

1. If Magneto had met Jean before, why didn't he ever mention it or act like it in the first two movies?

Well, Magneto had some sort of relationship with all of the X-Men at the time of the first movie, based on the way Xavier speaks to Wolverine about him. If they hadn't met him in person, Xavier had filled them in on him. The fact that we were following Wolverine and Rogue into the story, relative outsiders, explains more or less why we meet Magneto as a relative newcomer.

That said, sure, Magneto could've had more "familiar" moments with the X-team during the climax of the film.

nodforlife wrote:2. If Jean had this all-powerful hidden side, why was it never brought up in the first two movies?

Well, it was clearly built up in the second film with the moments when Jean "flared up" with excess power. I quite like that something at Liberty Island in film 1 sparked this regress into her power, that perhaps Magento's machine shook some of Xavier's controls free.

And the reason we didn't see more of this in X1 is explained in X3: there were psychic bonds put in place by Xavier to keep Jean in control.

nodforlife wrote:3. When the X-Crew goes to Gene's old house, Magneto says 'Hello Charles' and Charles looks surprised. Wasn't Magneto just off camera, and wasn't his crew on the lawn of the house, in plain view of the X-Men's line of site? Is this a case of the characters only being able to see what the camera sees, a la the end of 'The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?'

I actually thought this part was just clunkily directed. There was no reason for us to not cut over to Magneto in that first moment when he walked up to Xavier. This was one place I thought was just sloppy. No excuses will suffice.

nodforlife wrote:4. In the first movie, Magneto was severely weakened by using the machine, but in the third he could move the entire Golden Gate Bridge without breaking a sweat. Huh?

I think he was given advanced power for the sake of the sequence. It seems like one of the "it worked in the comics, it'll work in the film" moments.

The films HAD been slowly building his powers, to the point where he could stop a falling X-jet cold in X2. It's still a bit of a stretch, but I'll go with it.

nodforlife wrote:5. Why did Magneto move the bridge anyway? Why couldn't Gene just levitate everyone over to Alcatraz?

My thought on this is that Jean was such a loose canon as it was, I highly doubt she'd be interested in following any kind of orders. Magneto was able to gently coerce her into going after the one reamaining source of human control (i.e. the cure), but he couldn't really control her (see the moment when she threatens him with the cure).

Jean was down with incineration, not levitation.

nodforlife wrote:6. Are we to believe that in an entire country of mutants, the only ones willing to fight to protect the cure are the X-men?

Ehhh, it's a movie.

Sure, more would've stood up, but the X-Men were really the only ones who had the intel that it was happening at that time and that place. I'll go with this one.

nodforlife wrote:7. Why did Magneto need an army of mutants? Why didn't Gene just vaporize all the guards on the island single-handedly?

Because what happens if Jean is taken out before he knows what's going on on the battlefield? Send in the pawns, figure it out, wait for the cavalry... send in Jean to clean up.

nodforlife wrote:8. Why did Wolverine stab Gene with his claws? Why didn't he give her the cure?

It's more dramatic this way.

........and they JUST ran out of all the cure everywhere.

nodforlife wrote:9. What would happen if Wolverine got the cure? Would his mutant healing powers fight it?

They actually debated this issue years ago with the Legacy Virus. His abilities SHOULD be able to combat the virus, but what if the virus just overcame his abilities?

Personally, I think the cure would work on even him.

nodforlife wrote:10. Does that bald kid make mutant POWERS dissapear, not just in mutants, but altogether? For example, if Iceman shot an ice beam at him, would it disintagrate when it got within the bald kid's sphere of influence?

No, he can't stop projectiles from coming toward him, but he can stop a mutant's ability in a surrounding bubble. If Iceman shot an ice shard at him with enough force and accuracy from hundreds of miles away, it'd still hit. But if Iceman was in close enough proximity, he couldn't be able to ice up at all.


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

Postby RogueScribner on Fri Jun 02, 2006 3:19 am

So RottenTomatoes.com has X1 at 80%, X2 at 87%, and X3 at 54%, yet X3 stands to be the biggest moneymaker of them all. Coincidence? :P


BTW, I'd rate them: X1 - 7/10, X2 - 9/10, X3 - 5/10.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9607
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron