Cinematical

I love it how some online "writers" talk as though their opinion is truth. For starters, in MY OPINION the first Rush Hour was a pretty funny decent action flick, and The Family Man was a cute little story. Brett Ratner did a fine job with X3, and the reason is....it was the 3rd act. What normally happens in the 3rd act, Jeff? ACTION, ACTION, FINALE, ACTION. It's an ACTION film. It's an ACTION comic. Did you actually READ X-Men? Because Ratner's vision of the X-Men are actually more accurate than Singer's vision. He threw everything and the kitchen sink out in X3, and that's how a X-Men comic reads. Do your homework and stop sounding like you're NOT an internet blogger who doesn't even get paid for this.

Reply

Here's an insane theory. Maybe, just maybe, X3 made such a huge amount of money because some people -- a lot of people, in fact -- actually LIKED it. You're letting your personal opinion of the film get in the way of reality, dude.

Reply

I fully agree with you that Ratner's previous films have been atrocious. But let's put it in perspective. Were the Rush Hour films terrible because of Ratner, or because of that horrible, horrible "actor," Chris Tucker? His voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Was Ratner responsible for his casting? Likely, but still, I'd say he's not to blame for the whole thing.

"Red Dragon" was garbage, but so was Ridley Scot's "Hannibal."

Personally, I enjoyed "X-Men 3." Maybe my expectations were low, and so, was surprised. No, not as good as the first two, but not terrible either. I would see it again. Had some nice set pieces, and a decent level of tension. Could it have used more subtlety? Absolutely, especially in exploring its central theme of homogenizing an entire "race" of people. Was some of the dialogue stilted? Yeah, but not all of it. Was the Phoenix character handled poorly? Okay, I'm with you there all the way.

But I don't understand your surprise at the film making money. If you saw the first two, you're likely a fan of the genre and/ or the comic books. There's no way you could NOT see the third one, especially after watching the originals some more on dvd.

For the general public, it usually doesn't matter who directed the film, just to us film nerds.

Reply

Dead man was terrible. Hearing Neil Young's twangy electric guitar made me want to stab myself in the ear with an ice pick.

Reply

Hey, Dead Man was art. But Jarmusch isn't for everyone.

Actually, I thought X-3 was pretty good by the standards of regular movies. It wasn't what it could have been and that's a disappointment, but it addressed serious issues that are completely ignored by mainstream, even Oscar, fare. The fault with X-3 lay largely in the script which tried to do too many things and failed to understand how the stories it borrowed actually worked.

Why did it sell more tickets? Because it's no longer seen as nerdy to attend comic book films, so your average bozo will attend if only to be able to tell his friends that he went. No one wants to be left out of the water cooler discussion Monday morning. I can't tell you how many people I heard at the theater who had not seen the two prior films and who were unfamiliar with the books complaining about not understanding what was going on.

Reply

Dear Pubah,

Say what you will, but Jeff M. Anderson makes his livign writing for Cinematical, several newspapers and other web sites as a paid professional. He's a gentleman whose work has appeared in too many newspapers to name here, in fact.

And you are ging by the name 'Pubah.'

Good Day, Sir.

I said Good Day!

Reply

"You're letting your personal opinion of the film get in the way of reality, dude."

Agreed.



And the reality is that the general consumer likes crap.
Look at popular music. It's the bottom of the bucket, but it sells.

Reply

Yeah there was many things wrong with X3. I don't know if of all of that goes to Ratner...or the script. Such a shame...I was looking for it so much. Whne I heard the director changed that concerned me, but I thought there is a possibility X3 still would have been gone. Ya know the only thing is that...it wasn't so much about if this is true to the comics or not I generally didn't care for it. They make these big leaps with huge characters dying. No character development. Part of the problem goes to the script. Shame Bryan Singer has to leave X3 for Superman Returns. Then I started to think maybe Superman Returns would be pretty good. I was wrong. Wasn't terible, but it wasn't all that good. Singer took some big leaps in that movie as well that could ruin the story and future sequels.

He should have stuck with X3....he understood those characters better. Another thing I didn't care for and its respectable that he did this, but it was a bad choice in my opinion that he based Superman Returns off the Donner films. Now we are going in circle and might see someone like Zod again! Superman has plenty of other large villians that will give him trouble instead of some guy pulling out kryptonite. As much as I like Lex Luthor Superman needs other villians.

Reply

ya know as a fan of the first 2.. i didnt think the movie sucked, i enjoyed it as a matter of fact, but just because you personally think a movie is terrible doesn't make it so.

For instance, Godfather is considered one of the greatest movies of all times by general consensus.. so if someone doesn't like it and calls it garbage, does that detract from it any less? Does that make people not want to see it? No. So while you may not like the movie, it certainly, as receipts prove, doesnt stand for the movie going audience.. apparently they saw fit to see it more than Superman Returns which some call a better movie, or not.

Reply

Personally, I feel the X-men series as a whole is pretty weak. I couldn't stand the first two, but was able to sit through the last one, which I felt was far better than the first two.

In fact, the only thing going for the series was Patrick Stewart. Wolverine was decent through all of them. Storm was ehh. Cyclops was a whiny sniveling brat. Jean was underpowered, even as phoenix. Ok, Magneto was good too...all the other "X-men" were the teenage mutant equivalent to watching an irradiated "Saved By the Bell," brought in to rake in the big bucks with the 12 and under audience...

Altogether, an underwhelming series for me. I was glad that Ratner took Singer's campy characters in bold steps, mainly by killing off some of the most important ones. It was somewhat refreshing in a series full of bloated special effect sequences and minimal character development. (please - distinguish art direction from the emotional bond formed by good directing/scripting/etc.)

Alright. I'm done.

Reply

X3 ain't Superman 1, but then neither is X1 or X2. Ratner errs toward ch-easy entertainment, while Singer errs toward hamhanded "character" stuff. Let's not pretend Singer is turning out the work of a genius, while Ratner is turning that of a hack.

And if Dead Man is that's what one calls "great", then one can't argue when his tastes are not represented in the mainstream. Dead Man, for my money, is a terrible movie in just about every way. I'd rather watch a Rush Hour of any number any day. Hell, I'd rather watch Apt Pupil.

Reply

Bob, I couldn't disagree with you more. I actually thought X3 has LESS character development and MORE BS special effects sequences than the first two movies. I think this is largely due to a script that makes the common mistake of confusing death with character development. This isn't Days of Our Lives, you know; scripting someone in a coma or a fiery death doesn't automatically make him or the people who play his family better characters.

Singer was content to evolve his characters-and especially the Phoenix story arc-slowly, patiently, building up tension; X3 basically wanted to blow the whole wad as soon as possible.

Reply

"Singer was content to evolve his characters-and especially the Phoenix story arc-slowly, patiently, building up tension; X3 basically wanted to blow the whole wad as soon as possible."

Maybe, but the films were planned as a trilogy. All the actors were contracted for three films. Being subtle about a plot arc is one thing, but Ratner had to finish the Phoenix story. Which meant showing the Phoenix. This film, as has been noted, was the third act: blow that wad!

Personally, I enjoyed it. But I still say Cyclops got a raw deal, even in the first two. At least Singer gave him a part in Superman to make up for it...

Reply

Opinions, it's sort of sad that we can't just have them and move on. I for one loved red dragon mostly because it was an excellent and very faithful adaptation of the book. Great work by Fines, Hopkins, and Norton.
Much better than the Manhunter version, which when far afield of the book with a cheeseball ending that only would have worked for a slick show like Miami Vice. Hmm, could it be Mann's baby. Had plenty of flame wars over it. Finally I accepted the fact that I disliked something others liked and it was just a waste of my time to rant about it. And I learned to like Brian Cox in many other roles and see his brillance as one great light in a bad film.
But that's the thing, what makes it bad or good is missing from so many critiques these days. I don't like manhunter for the devation of the book and I like red dragon for it's faithfulness. there's nothing that will change that.
ps
love jackie chan movies!

Reply

Yes - I loved both of the two X-Men films - they were different. As it as a trilogy everyone including my self expected Bryan Singer to complete the task. No he wanted to do Superman. So X Men are left dangling and it was the third director Brett Ratner that took the helm. Dont take it out on him he played the deck he was given and the action scenes, stunts and Wolverine, Jean/Logan, Professor X and Magnesto were there in force to ensure we got excitement, drama, terrific battles,romance [carried over from X2], heartbreak and the one thing lacking in all previous actions films of this genre - raw emotion.

I loved the film and so did many of my firends and we are wondering if Mr Singer is not just a little miffed when he sees how well X Men 3 The Last Stand has done in comparision to Superman - which I think is utterly unbelievable [except when Christopher Reeve played the part]and out of date. I dont want to see my heart throb flying arondi in blue tights and has put his under pants on the outside of the tights because he was in a hurry.

May be Brian Singer havng had a long time in experence with the first two films would have been better completing the trilogy - but with the outcome of Superman - well he may not. I congratulate Brett Ratner for taking the helm and not disappointing so many fans. Wolverine is everyone's favourite and I also like Jean'Pheonix.

Reply

What's with all this hate? X3 was an abomination without any of the excitement, subtlty and inventiveness of the first Xmovies. That said, X1 is about a B- while X2 is about a B+--neither is an A. Superman, while flawed, I think is a better movie than either of the Xmovies yet no better than a B+ because of some poor casting choices (Lois Lane) and wooden acting (again).

But back to X3: I honestly did not enjoy more than maybe 5 minutes on the whole from the movie and can't understand its apparent popularity. At least Pirates whisks you along and Johnny Depp is fun to watch. In X3 nobody comes across as anything other than a toy this hack crew assembled to play mutant house party with. Even Ian McKellen isn't up to snuff and he's the best thing about the movie...

Oh well...

AND! Dead man is amazing, as is the score. All you should go back and revisit it sometime in the near future. Or don't--maybe you just don't like poetry, even if it is in your face obvious.

Plus, Scanner Darkly is only appreciating in my brain.

Reply

One thing I will say for Prairie Home--Altman sure knows how to bring out the best in an actress, and Streep was a delight in the film, very warm and sensual. X3--it really was for the toy makers, and once was so much enough...in his haste, Ratner took Magneto--who had such a convincing critique of the human race--and turned him into a boring cartoon villain who abandons his soldiers when they're wounded. That's the Ratner touch. I'm all for Red Dragon, though--the plot and the casting was so sturdy that no one can really hurt it, even Ratner.

Reply

Ratner knew from the very start he was coming onboard X3 with a truckload of expectations. And one of those was that it wasn't going to be better than the first two X-movies simply because the first two were done by Brian Singer. Know what, I'm a longtime X-men Comics fan (lived through all team incarnations) and I was BORED watching the 1st movie. THANK JEBUZ the 2nd one picked up on the action and the 3rd was just ASTONISHING (to borrow an x-pun). That doesn't make Bret Rattner a great director, but it makes him a competent one in my book.

Reply

"AND! Dead man is amazing, as is the score. All you should go back and revisit it sometime in the near future. Or don't--maybe you just don't like poetry, even if it is in your face obvious."

Maybe you're just in love with Johnny Depp. So there.

Reply

Well said, ChrisLao.

Any X-Men fan will tell you that the 3rd one was the most accurate in story, speed, and nature. I love the first two films, but not because they're X-Men movies. I love the 3rd movie BECAUSE it was a X-Men movie.

Reply