Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 10:05 pm
by fluffy
I saw it this morning. (Yay work paying for movies!) I actually liked it rather a lot. It was a lot better than X-2 anyway. I haven't seen the first one. Of course they totally crapped on the continuity but HEY IT IS A MOVIE based on a WORK OF FICTION. It is not HISTORICAL TRUTH.
I mean, jeeze, people.
Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 11:34 pm
by Eric Y.
Hoblit wrote:I'm not going to just bite into X4
The LAST Last Stand (We Mean It This Time!)
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:26 am
by Hoblit
fluffy wrote:It was a lot better than X-2 anyway. I haven't seen the first one. Of course they totally crapped on the continuity but HEY IT IS A MOVIE based on a WORK OF FICTION. It is not HISTORICAL TRUTH.
I mean, jeeze, people.
It was NOT BETTER than X2...X2 is the best of the three with X1 following closely behind it.
I couldn't care less about the comics really..i AM basing my opinion on the movies standing alone so don't 'jeeze people' me!
Like I said, there were some neat effects... some neat parts..but as a whole... eh.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 10:14 am
by fluffy
X-2's acting was wooden and hammy, and the plot lacked any sort of consistency. It also came across to me as 'let's cram as many mutants into a single story as possible.' It was more like a pageant than a story.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 1:41 pm
by raisedbywolves
Uh, but X3 was not a cram-as-many-mutants-in-as-possible-fest? I think that's its main weakness. I liked X2 a lot. Where the hell is Nightcrawler? Too many blue characters with Beast now? Every movie needs more Alan Cumming!
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 1:51 pm
by john m
Didn't he say he wouldn't do X3? I mean, from an in-character standpoint, sure it's stupid that Nightcrawler wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure he turned down doing another X-Men film shortly after X2.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 2:09 pm
by fluffy
X3 had a lot of mutants but they were mostly extras. X2 tried to make every single one pivotal.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 2:41 pm
by jb
john m wrote:Didn't he say he wouldn't do X3? I mean, from an in-character standpoint, sure it's stupid that Nightcrawler wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure he turned down doing another X-Men film shortly after X2.
<a href="
http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles ... tory.jhtml">
"Fox has not picked up his option to play Nightcrawler for a second movie."</a>
Not Alan's fault.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 3:09 pm
by Edge of LA
Sad. Saaaad. Beast and Nightcrawler need their own movies anyway.
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 9:12 pm
by Adam!
fluffy wrote:X2 tried to make every single one pivotal.
That's what I'd call using the characters to drive the story. That's the difference between the new mutants introduced in X2 and the ones introduced in X3, which were added to sell toys. Seriously, Nightcrawler and Pyro helped move the plot along, fuel the conflict and had a heap of character development between them (I'll admit Iceguy did crap-all). In X3 we get Juggernaught and Kitty Pryde, who were obviously only included for the cool looking chase sequence; Angel and Beast who tread the fine line between extra and secondary-character by adding absolutely nothing to the movie. Even older characters are brought back just to look good, a great example being Pyro who does nothing but pointlessly light hurled cars on fire. I think every new X-men they added could be pulled and the movie would have lost nothing but the extra fat.
As a footnote, I liked X3 about as much as I liked the other ones, which is to say I found it fairly enjoyable.