STANDING LIMP AND TO THE LEFT
This past Saturday I was able to see X-Men: The Last Stand, and my feelings on it are very similar to binging on junk food. The day of, eating twenty dollars in candy bars, ice cream, and sodas seems like a good idea and brings you a lot of pleasure. The next day, however, is another story. Especially, after you see yourself in the mirror. You realize that twenty could have gone towards other things. Things that will be around much longer than the food your crapping into your toilet and you learn the lesson that food, ultimately, is a waste of money.
That’s how I feel about the “last X-Men movie.”
Leading into the holiday weekend, I was excited. I even risked my good standing at work to request the day off in short notice, just to see the picture with my family. And, as I sat there, it was great. I laughed. I cried. Most of all, I wished for a better story than what I was watching. I agree with the critics who wrote too much story was crammed into too short a picture, but that’s not what bugged me. It was the lack of character depth, development, and the decision to completely delete Marsden’s Scott Summers.
I’m not speaking as a comic book fundamentalist. I don’t care about costumes, story changes, or that characters died who still live on the two dimensional page. I’m writing about the material itself and the two movies that came before.
While I’m not a Bryan Singer fan – I think having the new Superman movie begin where the others left off lacks creativity and automatically sets up comparisons to the original, an American classic – I do think he was an essential part of brining the X-Men to the screen. Bryan Singer was able to combine action with character development. More than that, he was able to divide it amongst multiple characters, which brought an emotional element to the story, something to be expected from the director of The Usual Suspects.
Just looking at Brett Ratner’s filmography proves that he doesn’t work that way. He can do action, but not character, or vice versa. Never has he successfully accomplished both simultaneously, and if you hold up Rush Hour as proof otherweise, keep in mind there was only two charaters. Further, it seems he eliminated those characters that demanded drama in order to push the action. I always felt Singer purposefully ignored elements that are X-Men staples simply because they would take away from the characters themselves, and turn the movie into a bubblegum special effects flick. Things like Sentinels and the Danger Room were cut out of both movies, and now we see why. After all, where would they go? How would they fit in the story? Which is most important, showing a battle with giant robots or developing relationships and exploring motivations? Plus, Singer admitted to not having the money to do either one justice.
Ratner blew through all of that and not only proved why Singer opted out of them, but made me wonder what he would have done as I was watching the film. I knew I was in for it when the movie began with a Danger Room scene that had Wolverine and Storm training new members Kitty Pryde, Iceman, and Colossus against… a robotic head. REMEMBER: If you can’t do it justice, don’t do it at all.
Then, we see Scott and a poor portrayal of him being tormented by his psychic link with Jean. Not that Marsden did a bad job, but not enough time was devoted to getting the idea accross. I asked myself how many people in the audience hadn’t read the comics to know that Scott and Jean share a psychic connection, since it was never addressed in the movies. Or, how many knew the scene that lasted less than five minutes was representative of Scott’s life over the past few weeks, months, years, or who the hell knows when. The time between Jean's death and the start of the film isn't addressed. I wouldn’t have known any of this if not for reading an interview with Marsden. Then, after a brief, but exciting exchange with Wolverine that reinvigorated my hopes for a well-balanced film, Scott’s off to Alkili Lake. Why? Who the fuck knows.
Scott goes to Alkili Lake where Jean’s voice seems to be the strongest, causing him to attack the water. Why? Who the fuck knows. Jean miraculously returns from the dead in a blinding light, proceeded by a silhouette of her former self, what significance does this have? You guessed it, who the fuck knows? Then, Jean kills Scott. Why? Who the fuck knows why anything is happening at this point, other than because the actor was leaving to work with Singer on Superman.
From that moment, the movie only lives up to half it’s potential because a major driving force of Jean’s character and emotional conflict with Wolverine is gone. This was a chance for James Marsden to shine. In the first movie he’s barely present. In the second movie, even more so, but here he should be the main guy. It’s continuity, not from the books, but the movies. In the first movie, the temptation between Wolverine and Jean is introduced. But, in the second, it’s resolved. Wolverine even closes X2 telling Scott that Jean chose him. So, why would she, or any part of her splitered psyche, want him dead?
I started thinking of other ways they could have gone and how much better the movie would have been if they kept Scott alive. If it’s about the actor, find a new one. Hey, I’m all for finding a new actor if the old one doesn’t work out anymore. They should have found a new actor to play Nightcrawler, or go the extra mile to explain where he disappeared to instead of deleting the character and using his special effect for another teleporting character during the final fight. Oh, don't get me started about them using stock footage and old effects. I counted at least three. If Marsden was too busy, and you don’t want to wait, find a new guy. In the midst of my thoughts, I awoke when I realized in Scott’s absence Wolverine became the emotional focal point. The man who is all about making the hard choices, on paper and film, became the one who couldn't get the job done in time.
The movie then goes into a full gear mutant power fest and eye candy. Everything is so fast, if you’re not careful you’ll miss Professor Xavier getting killed. Not that anyone cares. The audience didn’t give a damn when Professor X bit the dust, literally, and I barely even cared. The only one who did care was Wolverine. That’s right, the bad ass was a ball of tears. The hard ass from the first two movies is gone, and we’re left with Logan, post Dr. Phil. My wife was quick to notice all dry eyes during Xavier's funeral and she spurted "Don't they care?"
I would mention the tragedy that was Angel, but he wasn’t in the movie enough for me to comment on anything, other than saying he wasn’t in the movie enough. Three scenes, approximately ten lines or less, and a character that should have had a huge role is reduced to Toad level. Angel's relationship with his father is the main impitus of the cure story. The charcaters are worthy of a prelude, but nothing afterwards, except setting up the catalyst for the war, which was just a catalyst for Dark Phoenix and a whole bunch of special effects. While we’re on new characters, Beast was cool, but I seem to remember him going from a speaking part to just standing around half way through the picture. Better that, than watching the climactic battle where Kelsey Grammar is strapped to a wire and flung aimlessly at people. Ratner’s idea of gymkata.
Despite being entertaining, X4 wasn’t what was expected from the last two. Many critics still hold up X2 as the best of the three and I agree. X3 is a proper “end” only financially, not creatively. The third installment broke rules established in the first two - wasn’t Trask, a young Caucasian working with Sen. Kelly, killed in the first movie?
Who knows if they’ll be an X4, but with the ending of this movie and the big money numbers, I’d find it hard to believe this is the last we’ve seen. It would be uncharacteristic of Hollywood to just pass on a something, instead of squeezing the life’s blood and picking the bones until everything is gone, then burying it long after it’s rotted in the sun. If they do, I hope Singer comes back. Perhaps his sexual choice gave him an understanding Ratner lacks.
JPG.
That’s how I feel about the “last X-Men movie.”
Leading into the holiday weekend, I was excited. I even risked my good standing at work to request the day off in short notice, just to see the picture with my family. And, as I sat there, it was great. I laughed. I cried. Most of all, I wished for a better story than what I was watching. I agree with the critics who wrote too much story was crammed into too short a picture, but that’s not what bugged me. It was the lack of character depth, development, and the decision to completely delete Marsden’s Scott Summers.
I’m not speaking as a comic book fundamentalist. I don’t care about costumes, story changes, or that characters died who still live on the two dimensional page. I’m writing about the material itself and the two movies that came before.
While I’m not a Bryan Singer fan – I think having the new Superman movie begin where the others left off lacks creativity and automatically sets up comparisons to the original, an American classic – I do think he was an essential part of brining the X-Men to the screen. Bryan Singer was able to combine action with character development. More than that, he was able to divide it amongst multiple characters, which brought an emotional element to the story, something to be expected from the director of The Usual Suspects.
Just looking at Brett Ratner’s filmography proves that he doesn’t work that way. He can do action, but not character, or vice versa. Never has he successfully accomplished both simultaneously, and if you hold up Rush Hour as proof otherweise, keep in mind there was only two charaters. Further, it seems he eliminated those characters that demanded drama in order to push the action. I always felt Singer purposefully ignored elements that are X-Men staples simply because they would take away from the characters themselves, and turn the movie into a bubblegum special effects flick. Things like Sentinels and the Danger Room were cut out of both movies, and now we see why. After all, where would they go? How would they fit in the story? Which is most important, showing a battle with giant robots or developing relationships and exploring motivations? Plus, Singer admitted to not having the money to do either one justice.
Ratner blew through all of that and not only proved why Singer opted out of them, but made me wonder what he would have done as I was watching the film. I knew I was in for it when the movie began with a Danger Room scene that had Wolverine and Storm training new members Kitty Pryde, Iceman, and Colossus against… a robotic head. REMEMBER: If you can’t do it justice, don’t do it at all.
Then, we see Scott and a poor portrayal of him being tormented by his psychic link with Jean. Not that Marsden did a bad job, but not enough time was devoted to getting the idea accross. I asked myself how many people in the audience hadn’t read the comics to know that Scott and Jean share a psychic connection, since it was never addressed in the movies. Or, how many knew the scene that lasted less than five minutes was representative of Scott’s life over the past few weeks, months, years, or who the hell knows when. The time between Jean's death and the start of the film isn't addressed. I wouldn’t have known any of this if not for reading an interview with Marsden. Then, after a brief, but exciting exchange with Wolverine that reinvigorated my hopes for a well-balanced film, Scott’s off to Alkili Lake. Why? Who the fuck knows.
Scott goes to Alkili Lake where Jean’s voice seems to be the strongest, causing him to attack the water. Why? Who the fuck knows. Jean miraculously returns from the dead in a blinding light, proceeded by a silhouette of her former self, what significance does this have? You guessed it, who the fuck knows? Then, Jean kills Scott. Why? Who the fuck knows why anything is happening at this point, other than because the actor was leaving to work with Singer on Superman.
From that moment, the movie only lives up to half it’s potential because a major driving force of Jean’s character and emotional conflict with Wolverine is gone. This was a chance for James Marsden to shine. In the first movie he’s barely present. In the second movie, even more so, but here he should be the main guy. It’s continuity, not from the books, but the movies. In the first movie, the temptation between Wolverine and Jean is introduced. But, in the second, it’s resolved. Wolverine even closes X2 telling Scott that Jean chose him. So, why would she, or any part of her splitered psyche, want him dead?
I started thinking of other ways they could have gone and how much better the movie would have been if they kept Scott alive. If it’s about the actor, find a new one. Hey, I’m all for finding a new actor if the old one doesn’t work out anymore. They should have found a new actor to play Nightcrawler, or go the extra mile to explain where he disappeared to instead of deleting the character and using his special effect for another teleporting character during the final fight. Oh, don't get me started about them using stock footage and old effects. I counted at least three. If Marsden was too busy, and you don’t want to wait, find a new guy. In the midst of my thoughts, I awoke when I realized in Scott’s absence Wolverine became the emotional focal point. The man who is all about making the hard choices, on paper and film, became the one who couldn't get the job done in time.
The movie then goes into a full gear mutant power fest and eye candy. Everything is so fast, if you’re not careful you’ll miss Professor Xavier getting killed. Not that anyone cares. The audience didn’t give a damn when Professor X bit the dust, literally, and I barely even cared. The only one who did care was Wolverine. That’s right, the bad ass was a ball of tears. The hard ass from the first two movies is gone, and we’re left with Logan, post Dr. Phil. My wife was quick to notice all dry eyes during Xavier's funeral and she spurted "Don't they care?"
I would mention the tragedy that was Angel, but he wasn’t in the movie enough for me to comment on anything, other than saying he wasn’t in the movie enough. Three scenes, approximately ten lines or less, and a character that should have had a huge role is reduced to Toad level. Angel's relationship with his father is the main impitus of the cure story. The charcaters are worthy of a prelude, but nothing afterwards, except setting up the catalyst for the war, which was just a catalyst for Dark Phoenix and a whole bunch of special effects. While we’re on new characters, Beast was cool, but I seem to remember him going from a speaking part to just standing around half way through the picture. Better that, than watching the climactic battle where Kelsey Grammar is strapped to a wire and flung aimlessly at people. Ratner’s idea of gymkata.
Despite being entertaining, X4 wasn’t what was expected from the last two. Many critics still hold up X2 as the best of the three and I agree. X3 is a proper “end” only financially, not creatively. The third installment broke rules established in the first two - wasn’t Trask, a young Caucasian working with Sen. Kelly, killed in the first movie?
Who knows if they’ll be an X4, but with the ending of this movie and the big money numbers, I’d find it hard to believe this is the last we’ve seen. It would be uncharacteristic of Hollywood to just pass on a something, instead of squeezing the life’s blood and picking the bones until everything is gone, then burying it long after it’s rotted in the sun. If they do, I hope Singer comes back. Perhaps his sexual choice gave him an understanding Ratner lacks.
JPG.
posted by QABBAL at 2:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home