Just saw X-Men III (Now with spoilers!)

Taelorn76 · May 31, 2006

DonTadow said:
but mosto f the mutants killed didnt even have powers. Thats what really irked me.

So if they didn't have powers how could they be mutants. Are you saying they needed to blow the buget through the roof just so each mutant on shown on screen had their powers displayed?

buzz · May 31, 2006

Firebeetle said:
We've got a lot of naysayers on the thread. To them I issue a challenge:

Name a better third installment sequel for a comic book franchise. You must be able to articulate why and you cannot brush it off with "anything is better than this movie" because that's a cop-out.

Why should my ability to answer this question relate in any way to the quality of X3? How many comic franchises other than Superman and Batman have even reached a thrid film? What, Blade? Heck, how many non-comic franchises made it to three films?

Is your point that second sequels tend to suck, and in that light, X3 is pretty good becasue it only sucked so much?

This review is pretty spot on: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/179186.php

I had a moderate amount of fun watching X3. I, nonetheless, did not think it was particularly good, and it was certianly the weakest X-film, by a wide margin.

Taelorn76 · May 31, 2006

DonTadow said:
Errr, this was a war? how so. What the heck were the yfighting about. I couldn't tell. I dont think the audience could either. Again lots of boom booms ...yay. Magneto had a reason, but the xmen's reason was pretty ...well unknown.

Man if you could not tell what the X-Men were fighter for I don't know what movie you were watching.

DonTadow said:
I mean in the last movie they did the exact same thing from the other side.

In the 2nd movie they fought to stop a crazed military man from exterminating mutants. In the 3rd movie they are fighting to stop a crazed mutant from exterminating humans.

Taelorn76 · May 31, 2006

DonTadow said:
I have, I mean dang, the bad thing is you couldn't help but watch the movies before this movie came out. Every channel every day. I honestly watched two on cable the day before when i got to my friends beach home. I watched the second half later in the week.

Honestly I think that may be your problem right there you watched them on cable and they may have edited out the more violent scenes

buzz · May 31, 2006

Another review, this one from Mr. Ebert: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060525/REVIEWS/60509005

A decent counterpoint to the more snarky, negative review I posted earlier. The summary is fairly spot-on:

Roger Ebert said:
My guess is there are just plain too many mutants, and their powers are so various and ill-matched that it's hard to keep them all on the same canvas. The addition of Beast, Angel and Leech, not to mention Multiple Man, Juggernaut and the revived Dr. Jean Grey (reborn as Dark Phoenix) causes a Mutant Jam, because there are too many X-Men with too many powers for a 104-minute movie. There are times when the director, Brett Ratner, seems to be scurrying from one plot line to another like that guy who had to keep all of his plates spinning on top of their poles.

All the same, I enjoyed "X-Men: The Last Stand." I liked the action, I liked the absurdity, I liked the incongruous use and misuse of mutant powers, and I especially liked the way it introduces all of those political issues and lets them fight it out with the special effects. Magneto would say this is a test of survival of the fittest. Xavier would hope they could learn to live together.

I've read that X3 was rushed to theaters to hit before Superman Returns, and it shows in the script, direction, and FX. Overall, it's just iffy enough that you'll see the lack of unified opinion demonstrated on this thread.

Given this is the last X-Men film (for now), it's kind of a bummer. Going out on a definitive high note would have been a lot more satisfying.

Abraxas · May 31, 2006

Honestly I think that may be your problem right there you watched them on cable and they may have edited out the more violent scenes

They didn't edit out the scenes in my neck of the woods, probably because there isn't any blood or gore shown. However, Wolverine only racks up a body count of about 6 or 8 total before offing the mutant chick with adamantium fingernails. (And even thats suspect, because a number of those could just be crippling attacks and not fatal - as if thats a whole lot better.)

buzz · May 31, 2006

Here's The Onion's take, also quite accurate:

The Onion said:
X-Men: The Last Stand
Director: Brett Ratner
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen, Halle Berry
Rated: PG-13
103 minutes
Reviewed by Nathan Rabin
May 24th, 2006

Bryan Singer's first two X-Men movies are pop-culture anomalies: big-budget, special-effects-driven superhero blockbusters that get just about everything right. But after Singer exited the franchise to helm Superman Returns, the producers did something egregiously wrong: They handed over the reins to Brett Ratner, whose handling of Rush Hour 2 and Red Dragon proves he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a successful franchise, even one he helped create. The X-Men have survived mutation, persecution, and supervillainous foes hell-bent on their destruction. But can they survive Ratner? Well, no.

The always-welcome Ian McKellen leads an overstuffed cast as a villainous mutant intent on destroying a mutation "cure" and its source, a spooky little boy (Cameron Bright) who isn't a character so much as a sentient plot point with unnerving blue eyes. To defeat McKellen and his band of punky new recruits—most of whom appear to be on loan from a Stranglers concert circa 1981—the heroic X-Men are forced to do battle with the forces of evil alongside newcomers like Ben Foster's winged do-gooder Angel and Kelsey Grammer's Beast, who's far duller than any character who talks like a Stanford dean and looks like the misbegotten offspring of a werewolf and a Smurf has any right to be.

Directing an X-Men movie is an epic task requiring a varied set of skills. X-auteurs have to juggle new characters with old favorites, balance soap-opera plots with giant action setpieces, and deal with the series' political and philosophical underpinnings. But Ratner's direction is seldom more than workmanlike. New characters like Grammer's erudite furball and Foster's blond flyboy barely register, while Halle Berry continues to be the series' Achilles heel, a wan, forgettable presence even when delivering a eulogy that should mark a pivotal moment in the franchise, but instead feels like a ham-fisted afterthought. The setpieces lack panache, while the dramatic elements feel flat and perfunctory. Following two superior entries, Ratner's slick placeholder of a sequel lacks that crucial X-factor called inspiration.

Taelorn76 · May 31, 2006

Vigilance said:
They are not enemies, they're friends
Chuck

I believe we are agreed on this. I just did a poor job of explaining my self in the previous post. I was trying to show that they are indeed friends.

Taelorn76 · May 31, 2006

Vocenoctum said:
All three movies have had a problem with "super powers", it's one of the things I liked about F4 really. Rogue doesn't fly or have super strength for example. In fact, almost no one flies, and none of them were very maneuverable. Super Strength also lagged. Rogue can lift what, 20 tons? Collosus 100tons? All were hideously weak, comparatively speaking.

Those aren't Rogue's original powers. She stole those from another charcter, when she helkp on to long. She also ended up stealling some of Carol Danvers (Ms Marvel) personality.

Vocenoctum said:
And really, to beat Phoenix, you just have Rogue steal the healing factor, charge her and give a good kiss!
Or, something like that...

If Rogue had done that she would actually be more dangerous than Jean, since she has no training at all in how to handle psychic powers, it would have been to much for her, and possibly lead to more destruction.

Vocenoctum said:
Also, the movie XMen seem to ignore the rest of the world, so they removed the mysticism elements. Juggernaut doesn't have the bands (and, looked stupid), but Prof X's Astral Projection stuff would fit better with his New Body Taking.

I don't believe the bands are what gives Juggernaut his power. I think it's a crystal of some sort.

WayneLigon · May 31, 2006

Taelorn76 said:
I don't believe the bands are what gives Juggernaut his power. I think it's a crystal of some sort.

From UNcanny X-men.net (Which is also a perfect place for people to go if you're wondering what the comic versions of the movie characters are like; most of them have the same extended writeup.

Infused with the power of the Ruby Gem of Cyttorak that gives him immeasurable strength and endurance, a massive indestructible body reinforced by an inertia-canceling force field, and an enchantment that renders him virtually unstoppable once in motion.

Cyttorak is a magical entity usually called on for spells of binding and protection, like Dr. Stranges 'Crimson Bands of Cyttorak'.

In the comics, the helmet prevented psionic assault, his only vulnerability.

Just saw X-Men III (Now with spoilers!)

Taelorn76

First Post

buzz

Adventurer

Taelorn76

First Post

Taelorn76

First Post

buzz

Adventurer

Abraxas

Explorer

buzz

Adventurer

Taelorn76

First Post

Taelorn76

First Post

WayneLigon

Adventurer

Attachments

Similar Threads