X-Men: The Last Stand

[2099net]

Were X-Men and X-Men 2 good movies? I honestly don't know. That's not to say I didn't enjoy them - I did. But I'm not sure how they stand up as stand alone movies. I do know that my mother, who does watch and read a lot of science fiction and fantasy and knows the language and conventions of the formats was totally lost during both films. Which, can't be good.

I also know that I was disappointed by both - especially X-Men 2 - but that's inevitable after waiting the best part of 20 years for an X-Men film to come, and then two turn up almost at once!

But both films have a lot to commend. Starting with the portrayal of Magneto. And the films capture a lot of the motivation and morals behind the existance of mutants well.

I don't really like this obsession with having Superheroes in the "real world" - they don't work in the real world, and they never will. So I don't agree with the black leather costumes selected. The X-Men films aren't the only ones guilty of this.

As for Big baddies, I have to disagree. There's far to many in the comics these days. Do we really need another Apocalypse story? Etc.

X-Men works best when the stories are parables for prejudice and hatred which we find today in the real world. That's why Claremont WAS (sadly, was) the best comic book writer ever. His stories were grand, ambitious, global... sometimes universal in their execution, but even during this, he wrote personal stories. Dark Phoenix isn't about a super powered villain destroying a sun. Its the personal story of a person struggling to limit her abilities in order to conform to society's expectations and demands, and what happens when the need and tempation to "let it all go" gets too much. Claremont's smaller stories, touching on the emotions of the X-Men were always the best.

[Lazario]

Totally have to disagree here. The first movie was made to appeal to the general moviegoer first, and then the comic book fan.

That doesn't mean anything. Anyone could say that about any movie, any movie based on a comic book - and it doesn't mean anything. These movies were two of the worst films of both of each's release year.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

As said in my wonderful and recent post in the 2006 Oscar winners Thread, I really think Lazario only likes 10 things on this planet and he's disquised as a Disney fan just to insult everything that isn't one of those 10 things. What a loser!

The X-Men films were not the best comic-book based movies, but both of them(especially the 2nd) were extremely entertaining.

I'm not hugely excited about a 3rd one, but I'll see it eventually.

[Lazario]

I really think Lazario only likes 10 things on this planet and he's disquised as a Disney fan just to insult everything that isn't one of those 10 things. What a loser!

I don't think someone in your position is best to judge whether or not anyone else is a loser. This from the guy who did not see Brokeback Mountain (the best and most-important film of the year) but thinks he knows anything about the film's quality. You're on the fast track to becoming the new Alan-doesn't-like-DVDs-without-slipcovers : a one-line joke! Come up with all the excuses you want - but at least I've seen what I'm talking about. So forgive me if I don't take a word you say for anything other than guess-speak. Maybe you're best fit to go to a Gameshow board!

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

You're on the fast track to becoming the new Alan-doesn't-like-DVDs-without-slipcovers : a one-line joke!

OUCH!!!

Okay I would except the "new dvdjunkie" or "new memnv" (I chose those members as they have a history of making fun of you) but "new Alan"? That's going too far!

I don't think someone in your position is best to judge whether or not anyone else is a loser. This from the guy who did not see Brokeback Mountain (the best and most-important film of the year) but thinks he knows anything about the film's quality. Come up with all the excuses you want - but at least I've seen what I'm talking about. So forgive me if I don't take a word you say for anything other than guess-speak. Maybe you're best fit to go to a Gameshow board!

Hey, there's a difference between that. I've said it before, I'll said it again: I NEVER made a final opinion on Brokeback Mountain. If I did, then fine, I deserve the treatment, but I never said I had a FINAL opinion on it.

The best and most-important film of they year? Well you're gay, OF COURSE you're going to love this film. Will it hold up to a hetrosexual though? I mean I keep hearing "it doesn't matter what your believes are because it's a great romance movie". But if this romance wasn't about a gay couple would it get the same hype it's been getting? I doubt it.

Let me tell you there are two types of films, one type where you have no idea whether it'll be good or bad unless you see or one type where you can make a fair judgement before you see it. I'm not making a final opinion, but from the looks of it, it doesn't look good to me. Everyone has done that before once in their life don't get to arguementive.

Now lets not get too carried away(a bit too late for that though). This thread is about X-Men. Both films are very entertaining, so I would disagree with you.

[Lazario]

The best and most-important film of they year? Well you're gay, OF COURSE you're going to love this film. Will it hold up to a hetrosexual though? I mean I keep hearing "it doesn't matter what your believes are because it's a great romance movie". But if this romance wasn't about a gay couple would it get the same hype it's been getting? I doubt it.

Hey Smarty, the reasons why it's the best and most-important film of the year, among being a very true romance story, are as follows: it contains a very real social message about how a love cannot be defined by gender, how many factions of society could not deal with these men's love for each at all and how wrong that is, it's a very controversial film made with the utmost respect by everyone involved with the production who take a real chance on the movie in the face of political and social adversity and with a great deal of backlash by foolish conservatives and certain religious communities, it doesn't sell-out to the stereotype of gay-cowboy movie, it has an affinity for it's setting as well as it's characters.

This thread is about X-Men. Both films are very entertaining, so I would disagree with you.

Well, like I believe I've pointed out before - I could say having a dentist drill inserted into my lower abdomen is entertaining, I think people are apt to disagree with that - wouldn't you agree? Anyone can say anything is entertaining, and any old 2-bit 5-spot Charlie can disagree - wow, we're really getting somewhere. But when it comes to were the films good, which I'm arguing they were not, I think a few more things than simple 'entertainment value' should be taken into account. Such as- technical merit, filmmaking ingenuity, originality, and so on. These films are utter failures on every level other than, for some of the talent involved, acting ability. Rebecca Romijn can't act to save her life, the plots for these films in relation to the mutants being a new minority being persecuted was so unbelievably heavy-handed that it made no difference (they could have just as convincingly made the case that they were a put-upon staff of cooks on strike because the customers at their restaurant never liked their food! - it's that plastically applied), speaking of plastically applied- check out that worthless CGI- nothing more original and cutting-edge than that phony garbage - again I praised the animated series, where at least there you don't have to put up with a dramatic storyline in animated form being polluted by live-action, which of course would have added comedic value, so I can't see where a logical distinction would be drawn between these movies and SpongeBob SquarePants, for God's sake! The animated series was SIMPLY far more pure than these horrible films.

[Disney-Fan]

The best and most-important film of they year? Well you're gay, OF COURSE you're going to love this film. Will it hold up to a hetrosexual though? I mean I keep hearing "it doesn't matter what your believes are because it's a great romance movie". But if this romance wasn't about a gay couple would it get the same hype it's been getting? I doubt it.

Hey T/P fan, don't see this as an attack on you personally, but I have to comment on that remark. I disagree that because someone is gay he/she will automatically enjoy the movie. I do agree that it would NOT have gotten the hype it did, but that doesn't contradict the fact that you can enjoy it just as much being a hetrosexual. It is a story about love first and foremost. Sexual contact is kept to a minimum. Seeing as that's the only thing that makes this love "gay", you could say that it's hardly a gay movie at all. Just a heart-felt movie about a love one can have for another.


Now... Back to X-Men III!

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Thanks DisneyFan 2000. You made a very good point, and one of the most well-thought out ones about Brokeback Mountain to date. I promise that, unless I see the movie, I will not argue about Brokeback on this message board again!

Not to be argumentative Lazario, but what is wrong with the CGI in X-Men? Story and acting works differently for different people so I won't go there, but as far as visuals, I can't find to much fault in either X-Men. They pretty much blend well into the real world unlike several other films I've seen. You seem to be praising the original cartoon series. I've also noticed in ALOT of threads recently, you're dissing CGI being in ANY film. Are you just a 90-year old man in disguised dissing anything that isn't "old-school"?

[Lazario]

Not to be argumentative Lazario, but what is wrong with the CGI in X-Men? Story and acting works differently for different people so I won't go there, but as far as visuals, I can't find to much fault in either X-Men. They pretty much blend well into the real world unlike several other films I've seen. You seem to be praising the original cartoon series. I've also noticed in ALOT of threads recently, you're dissing CGI being in ANY film. Are you just a 90-year old man in disguised dissing anything that isn't "old-school"?

I was a kid when Jumanji came out, so I thought that movie was pretty good. Because, when you went to see a movie like that in the theater, you really couldn't or didn't notice the CGI - it wasn't so obvious. But nowadays, it's way more obvious and it's sickening how phony it looks and how often it's chosen when the work done is by these computer guys but the work itself is NOT unique or special. People can try and tell me how much work goes into computer technology... But listen up, because I've got a little something to tell you that you might not know about. A LOT more work than what's ever gone into computer-generated-images went into clay-animation. The patience and handwork that goes into shooting claymation sequences is so unbelievably trying - anyway, I think anyone who's seen Nightmare Before Christmas would agree. Anyway, just think about how many movies used claymation in their live-action films. Not a lot of examples, but it doesn't even really matter because there are enough movies. And anyway, people watch those and they know how dated they are and they pick on them. Right now you're defending CGI, no I don't know how old you are, but later if you are younger than me you'll SEE the day people pick on CGI like crazy. I'll still be alive (most likely), but I'll be too busy laughing at you to say I told you so. So it makes no difference if it's claymation or CGI mixed with live-action, they're expecting people won't notice but it's impossible not to notice that the effects are natural looking and they're not and they never will be and you can't ignore it. Basically, it's the same problem as the CGI with any other movie using it. It's annoying! Especially in X2 and all the sequences with the Mystique.

And anyway, the animated series handled the plots so much better, more convincingly, and made you feel A LOT more for the characters. My brother got me hooked on that show for a time and when you'd get to the end of an episode, you just did not want to have to wait a week to see the next episode. And they weren't so damn long, like these stupid movies.

[MadonnasManOne]

[And they weren't so damn long, like these stupid movies.

Lazario, if you don't like the movies, fine. Just understand, there are a lot of people that do enjoy the films. It's okay. You'll live. There is no need to attack them, and call them stupid.

At any rate, I quite enjoy the movies, and X2 is actually one of the better sequels ever made. It had a real, emotional depth to it. I can't wait to see X3. Even if someone might consider it stupid.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Hey Lazario, I'm a fan of stop-motion too. Who said we can't like both?

Also, I'm not just a young person who believes everything should be CGI, in fact I don't like movies that over-do it either (the Matrix movies and King Kong (2005 remake of course) being the best examples), however I do think CG animation can look absoultly amazing and can name a lot of movie in the past decade that have looked cool thanks to amazing CGI.

C'mon, I'm curious, you can't think of one movie released the past decade that had cool CGI?

[Prince Eric]

I think X2: X-Men United is the best comic book movie to date, followed by the Spider-Man movies. I disliked the first X-Men, for many reasons, including the sloppy dialogue, unbelievable visual effects, and a stale storyline. The sequel improved ten-fold on every level, including the acting and character archs (even saying anything based on a comic book has emotional depth is a bit of a hyperbole, in my opinion). Comic book movies, at their core, as supposed to be fun and harmless, which is why I couldn't quite recommend the dark psychology of Batman Begins or the artistic flair of Hulk. Ang Lee and Christopher Nolan are wonderful directors, but sometimes a comic book geek is all that's really needed to pull off a good movie. With that said, I really enjoyed the X-Men sequal and it was the first comic book movie I have ever seen that I though could stand up by itself as a good movie.

[2099net]

OK Eric two things.

Firstly, when you say emotional depth for a comic book is hyperbole, I take it you just mean the superhero genre of the medium, otherwise you're using it to include such works as Maus, The Road to Perdition. A History of Violence, From Hell and V For Vendetta (and indeed, any other Alan Moore work). And don't judge some of these titles by their film adaptations, go out and read the comic book. (Alan Moore has famously refused payment for his films he disapproves of them so much). Then tell me if they can have emotional depth or not.

Secondly, its also offensive if you do mean just the superhero works. Check out any of Chris Claremont's pre-X-Men (2nd Series) work when he was at the height of his creative work. His whole writing was story arcs and emotions! Claremont could set the seeds for a character in one panel, only for it to be paid off 30 issues down the line, if not even further. It was storytelling on a vast scale, but all of it revolved around the characters. Considering not only was he writing in a monthly medium, but also had constraints and rules he was working against while writing (remember, he never owned the characters and ultimately had no final say in their fate like novelists do) its an even greater achievment. (Sadly, ignore his current work, its crap).

Claremont isn't the only one though. Peter David did wonders on the Hulk - yes the Hulk, and made a series on the brink of cancellation into a must read (and again, had emotional depth and character arcs), Frank Miller made comics as far from fun with his Batman: Year One and Daredevil run, and of course is working wonders with Sin City outside the genre now. Brian Michael Bendis is writing some good stuff, but the peak of his work is his Alias series (nothing to do with the TV series). Also check out Kevin Smith's (yes, Silent Bob) Daredevil arc - its amazing what's been fit into such a short comic run (although this does work to its detriment at times).

And of course, although it's dated and superficial now, remember it was the very fact that Stan Lee's superhero work did have emotion and character arcs that Marvel Comics became popular, and indeed forced DC comics to do the same.

Finally - go and get both volumes of Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and if need be the two "index" books from Jess Nevins, and be amazed at how deep, literate, imagnative and creative a "comic strip" can be, while also taking great fictional characters and actually adding and expanding their character and emotions. The fact that each 6 issue story can create an "index" of over 300 pure text pages of annotations and essays says it all really.

[MadonnasManOne]

The sequel improved ten-fold on every level, including the acting and character archs (even saying anything based on a comic book has emotional depth is a bit of a hyperbole, in my opinion).

As you said, that's your opinion. However, if that wasn't heart, or emotional depth, then I don't know what it is considered? We care about the character of Jean Grey. Her sacrifice for those she cares about, and the resulting pain of it, are felt through the characters and, in my opinion, resulted in a very emotional film with a weight I had not expected from a film based upon a comic book.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I felt the emotional depth of the film. I'm sure I am not the only one.

[Prince Eric]

OK 2099 net, two things...er, make that one.

I could have sworn we were talking about comic book superhero movies on this thread. If I didn't say those words specifically, I assumed they were implied...I don't read comic books, I read graphic novels.

MadonnasManOne -

You're right, that's my opinion. I said that, but thanks for repeating it. What you see in comic book movies is something totally different. The "emotional depth" adds layers to the movie and prevents it from being a total joke, i.e. loud noises and flasy visual effects. I certianly didn't pull out a hanky when Jean Gray sacrificed herself. I don't think you can quite put that type of action on the same level as something not grounded in science fiction or fantasy, it just doesn't make sense to me. Besides, she's a superhero and a big girl. She can take care of herself.

[2099net]

OK 2099 net, two things...er, make that one.

I could have sworn we were talking about comic book superhero movies on this thread. If I didn't say those words specifically, I assumed they were implied...I don't read comic books, I read graphic novels.

But like I say, I was also talking about superheroes. Over half of my post was about superheroes, but you seem to have just ignored that!

You pick out the Hulk in your post, but actually Ang Lee's Hulk film takes a lot of Peter David's work on the Hulk as its basis. In fact, David went even further with the psycho analysis of Banner/Hulk - in the comic book, the reason Banner feels the need to repress his rage so much, which gave birth to the Hulk, is because he (accidently) murdered his father when he struck out at him when his father was abusing his mother. David also examines the contradiction of a "man of peace" being a scientist working on a gamma bomb project. Your idea of the Hulk may just be a dumb brute smashing everything for no reason, but the last 15+ years of the comic have been just like Ang Lee's film, but exploring the issues deeper over extended story arcs and characters.

Superheroes can still have character arcs and emotional writing.

As much as I support comic books, even Superheroes cannot function in the modern, realistic world. While some credit them as being modern day myths and legends (I'm not so sure), they do need to exist in a fantasy world to work properly.

Just like great works of literatue fiction work when set in their own "worlds" such as Lord of the Rings (or to a lesser extent Harry Potter) so do Superheroes need to exist in a slightly off-kilter, stylised "Earth". That's my main problem with all of these superhero films - they don't live up to the potential of the ideas, because they're being contrained by a need to fit into "reality". Jason from Jason and the Argonaughts doesn't work if he's in a traditional, historically accurate environment... he needs the gods, monsters and magic around him for his story to work.

[Prince Eric]

Well, that's why I don't quite buy your arguement. I don't care what the original sources contain, because movies are an entirely different medium, and as far as I'm concerned, the psuedo-psychology of most comic books should be lost when adapting for the screen. That's not a preference, that's just a realistic solution to making the things work. You can't have a good action movie while balancing deep issues. It just won't work, at least not for me. Like I said, X2: X-Men United stands as the primary example of balancing the two reals. Also, if the Spider-Man movies aren't depictions of a "stylized" earth, then what is? In fact, the art directon in most superhero movies implies a sort of not-to-distant future look.

[2099net]

It's not good enough to "imply" a slighty futuristic world. If we're being asked to believe a Spider-Man exists, we have to believe that a whole raft of similar people can exist too.

That's the biggest failing of the X-Men films to me (although, I believe a laser is used by a police man in the first X-Men film). It's still too rooted in the mundane reality.

When the ancient greeks and romans created their mythologies, they were filled with giants, monsters, gods, larger than life heroes and villains. All of these Superhero films just want to dip their feet into "unreality"... I don't know perhaps its for buget reasons, perhaps they think it will frighten off adults (although, why make a Spider-Man film unless you're going to actually USE the property you licence?)

Nobody would dream of making a new Sinbad film without including massive a CGI monsters, evil kings and wicked queens, perhaps the odd apparence of a god or two... Would Lord of the Rings work if it was set in the middle of a Kansas grassland with only a few non-real encounters?

Yet that's what these superhero films are, they're taking away the main selling point of the properties. We should have armies with bad-ass furturistic weapons, we should have mad generals and politicians dreaming up vast conspiracies, we should have a inkling or clue that there's other superpowered wakos out there as well as Spider-Man and Doctor Octopus. We should have people running away screaming as towerblocks are destroyed. And we should have people in bright gaudy technicolor costumes.

I don't see why you can't have an action film with a bit of thought behind it. That's what the Matrix was (but not the sequels), and hopefully (fingers crossed) what V for Vendetta promises. Constantine tried, but failed (but I feel it was close)*

While the recieved wisdom may be that you can't have a good action movie which also includes something deeper, I don't really see why. Isn't that just lazy thinking? Shouldn't a good writer and filmmaker be make it happen?

Lazario said the animated X-Men series was better. I disagree, it was far too simplistic. But at least it embraced the fantasy world Marvel had created, rather then fear how people would react to it.

* As a footnote, did you see how they basically didn't give a damn about upsetting the religious mobs, who normally protest such movies, yet they had to end the film with Constantine giving up smoking? What a totally PC cop-out which ruined any good work the other 120 odd minutes may have attempted.

[Prince Eric]

I think you're overthinking the equation of a comic book movie. Really, I don't get the comparisons to The Lord of the Rings and ancient mythology. The three have different dichotemies, plain and simple. The superhero movies work for me as far as context goes. I don't need a superficial CGI world to tell me I'm watching a superhero movie, but that's just me.

Also, I never said that action movies couldn't have a little thought behind them. That's just a dumb thing for anyone to say. However, when you go overboard, the work seems forced and pretentious, and that's how I felt when watching Hulk and Batman Begins. You have to realize the genre you're working with and go by those rules. Don't break them, but modify them. The average person is not going to go to a superhero movie that tries to subvert the rules of the formula, and as I've already said, a director doesn't have to to be successful. Bryan Singer did a fine job and so did Sam Raimi.

Again, I don't think you can have an equal amount of action formula and thought at the same time - either one or the other becomes superfluous. I don't think much of the Matrix or the other film you cited, some I haven't seen and don't want to. It really doesn't matter to me because I'm not the target audience for these movies anyway.

[Prince Eric]

I think you're overthinking the equation of a comic book movie. Really, I don't get the comparisons to The Lord of the Rings and ancient mythology. The three have different dichotemies, plain and simple. The superhero movies work for me as far as context goes. I don't need a superficial CGI world to tell me I'm watching a superhero movie, but that's just me.

Also, I never said that action movies couldn't have a little thought behind them. That's just a dumb thing for anyone to say. However, when you go overboard, the work seems forced and pretentious, and that's how I felt when watching Hulk and Batman Begins. You have to realize the genre you're working with and go by those rules. Don't break them, but modify them. The average person is not going to go to a superhero movie that tries to subvert the rules of the formula, and as I've already said, a director doesn't have to to be successful. Bryan Singer did a fine job and so did Sam Raimi.

Again, I don't think you can have an equal amount of action formula and thought at the same time - either one or the other becomes superfluous. I don't think much of the Matrix or the other film you cited, some I haven't seen and don't want to. It really doesn't matter to me because I'm not the target audience for these movies anyway.