X-Men 3

IsraelHoudini said:
the new mutants introduced didnt do anything. just one example: um....did someone forget to tell them that juggernaut is professor x's other arch enemy....and half brother. lord. they dont even show down. set up, pay off. screenwriting 101. multiple man....is left in the woods. and shockwave is some lanky goth kid? what? brotherhood of worthless mutants.
Click to expand...

well the writers said that in the movie juggernaut has no connection to Xavier whatesoever. which is dumb cause they're really screwing with the comics now... also in the comics juggs wasnt a mutant per se... he got his powers from some crystals or something but in the movie he's an actual mutant hence why Leech blocked his powers...

they really did a number on the comics in this one....

and had Singer stayed on as director it would have been a LOT longer movie which would have made the movie so much better...
 
ravinesedge said:
well the writers said that in the movie juggernaut has no connection to Xavier whatesoever. which is dumb cause they're really screwing with the comics now... also in the comics juggs wasnt a mutant per se... he got his powers from some crystals or something but in the movie he's an actual mutant hence why Leech blocked his powers...

they really did a number on the comics in this one....

and had Singer stayed on as director it would have been a LOT longer movie which would have made the movie so much better...
Click to expand...

yeah juggernaut got his powers from the crimson ruby of cyttorak which I was like he's not even a mutant. Also I don't recall mutant ever being clas 1, class 2, etc
 
Interesting. I'm suprised so many of you dissliked it. Seems like most are dissapointed it didn't follow the comic book. Well, The X books are a pretty complicated and interweaved as far as comics go. It's not like Supes, Spidey or Batman. I mean those guys are just one protag vs. whichever villian the producer decides to throw up on the screen. It's much easier to follow the story of those comics and it was much easier to pacify the comic geek in those films. The X-Men is more difficult. You simply have to put your 'geek' aside and allow them some leeway with characters and story.

It's a completely different medium with much different needs and time constraints. I'm suprised most of you, as filmmakers are so tough on them for not following the story to a tee. It's a movie, not a comic book. I know that's tough to swallow, but jeez. I can't see ruining my whole experience because juggernaut wasn't related to Xavier and other silly 'connections' that were not shown.

With that said, I do agree about the character development and story plot holes. But again, it's a fantasy sci-fi superhero movie. It's not Casablanca. As mentioned, if you go in open to having fun, like you're a kid again, then you should have a good time. Don't be that comic geek with your copy of Wizard gripped in your hand and the latest X-Men bible to point out inconsistencies, and you should be fine.

Also, I think it's funny that after most of you slam the film, the last thing you say is, 'but I wish it was longer'... Interesting.
 
i enjoyed the movie. there were a lot of problems with character development etc, but it was an enjoyable movie. it would have been better had Juggs been related to Xavier cause it would add a little more to the movie. i wish singer would have stayed on and did the epic film he wanted... oh well...


EDIT:

also they went and did all this promotional stuff for Angel and his part was small. he had what 3 lines in the movie? if they advertise a character as much as they did with Angel that character had better play a big part in the movie... i know he was supposed to be cured and all that jazz but come on... they could have used him a lot more...
 
I not saying they should have followed the comics and such to a tee but when you kill off 3 main members of the x-men I think we have a problem. When you tackle a story as large and intricate as x-men I understand that you can't go into detail with every person but if I didn't watch x-men or read the comic series I would have nothing that would relate me to any of the characters except on a very basic level ( Well excluding Magneto ). They tried to turn x-men into some Jean and wolverine love story when that's just not accurate nor smart. The roles that they had wolvering playing contradict his character. Wolverine is not the leader in the group because of his personality and to try to make him take the place of the leader (cyclops) was a stupid move. The only reason they did this was because wolverine is the cool character that has claws and spits of nifty catch phrases
 
I don't know. I still think this is a case of 'how I would have done it' syndrome. Which isn't a justified reason to hate a film, in my humble opinion. Most of the claims made by those dissapointed so far are based on lack of comic parallels. That's silly to me, this is an interpretation of the comic series, not a detailed adaptation.
 
I didn't say I hated the film it just let me down. It let me down because the story just wasn't there in the movie. After watching tt I can barely rememer any good dialogue that Ian Mckellen wasn't in. Part three is a very forgetable movie. What makes a movie great is it's story and if you screw up the story it's safe to say it sucks. Now I can understand not following the comic storyline if you replace it with a better story but it seems as though he just made up stuff to justify the Jean and Wolverine aspect. Let's think about how many scenes scott is in
1. Scott cries for jean
2. Scott chats with wolverine
3. Scott goes to the lake

I wonder how many lines jean had in this movie because since this movie is clearly about her why doesn't she say anything ?
I thought this movie was suppose to be about fighting oppression but they spent more time fighting jean then fighting the people that were oppressing them
 
Silver, my thoughts were general, not really directed at you at all. With that said, I dissagree. I think it was a great story, just not the story you wanted. To be honest I'm glad there was less Scott. He's been lame and boring through the first two films really, not as strong of a leader as in the comic series. Again, I've managed to seperate myself from the comic and enjoy the films, so I can say that he's just not that important in the films. That was the intention of the producers and it works for me. I liked the Wolvie storyline as well.
 
they ruined the Cyclops character in the movies. even in the first one. he is nothing like cyclops should be. cyclops is a leader he shouldnt have been letting wolverine tell him what to do at the end of the first movie during the liberty island incident. he was supposed to be the leader. wolverine is supposed to be the "passerby" he isnt supposed to take charge of the x-men at all... the phoenix story was blah... they totally rushed the story in the film... for a true phoenix story it should have spanned more than one film to get all of the story in there...

that's not totally why i didn't like this movie... i didnt like the movie as well as the first 2 because it didnt have the same feeling to it. it wasn't the same. it was a letdown. killing off 3 of the most important people in the X-Men was a really bad idea. they ARE the X-Men...

overall it was a good popcorn flick, but it totally butchered the X-Men..
 
Everyone's using the same words, 'should have', 'supposed to be', would have been better if'....

Guess my point has gone to the dogs. Oh well.
 
No I understand your point fully. It's that we keep comparing this movie to the story in the comic when we should be judging it on it's own which I understand , but when you take a franchise as huge as the x-men and try to make a movie you can't create a compeletly new story otherwise why use the x-men name in the first place? Why not just create a new story and movie and call it whatever you want and kill off whomever you want ?

generally when you kill off a main character in a movie it should serve some type of purpose but the only purpose killing off cyclops served was so that wolvering could kill jean in the end. If cyclops was around it wouldn't make sense for wolverine to be saving his girl.

I just find it all to convenient that wolverine just happened to be the only person that could kill jean and save everyone. Now don't get me wrong I really didn't like cyclops in the movie but why kill Xavier ? what benefit to the story did killing him make?
I felt at the end of the day the movie just tooks in a big circular rollercoaster leaving us back at the beginning with way more questions then answers
 
Did any of you all see the Snakes on a Plane trailer before the movie? The whole theatre went nuts when it went on!
 
Snakes on a Plane-has there ever been a movie that sells itself so well just with the title--what a brilliantly simple concept..and I like the poster image of the plane with the snakes wrapped around it.
its going to open huge.
But..
you just know it is going to spawn sequels like:

Spiders on a Boat
Scorpions on a Train
Tigers on a Bus
Bats on a Moped

and
Sharks in a Submarine
 
Last edited:
I'm at a loss for this snakes film. Looks like total garbage, but it's either going to be a huge flop or a blockbuster, leaving trailer parks empty nation-wide.
 
everyone in my theater actually laughed at the trailer thinking the movie was the dumbest idea ever... i was surprised that many people were in agreement about it...

i think its a dumb idea too...
 
Flightplan--now that was a dumb idea. This at least has some plausibility--whether or not its an idea that could sustain suspense or action over a half hour. Finished product may be awful, but I give it credit for not being a sequel, remake or a pretentious comic book movie that treats its subject matter like its Hamlet. There was a time when summer movies just tried to be fun.
 
First of all, I would like to say that the movie DID entertain me.

Other than that, I thought the movie was mediocre at best.

To begin with, let's start with characters. For two movies, Wolverine, Rogue, Storm, Jean, Scott, Professor X, ect. have been built up. These are our X-Men. We have romances between Rogue and Bobby, and a love triangle between Scott, Jean, and Wolverine. Things are starting to get interesting between the game of chess with Professor X and Magneto. Wolverine is starting to get somewhere with his past, Jean is coming into her powers, and Rogue is starting to develop further as a character...

And then we have X3.

---------SPOILERS------------------

Scott gets ganked (supposedly) without even a visual. Professor X gets vaporized too early in the movie. Wolverine completely changes character without motivation, and Storm tries to save the day with her words of wisdom and a new haircut. Magneto gets pwn3d, and Wolverine stabs Jean. Even the fight between Iceman and Pyro was like 2 secs of a duel similar to the one with Harry Potter and "You-Know-Who" in The Goblet of Fire.

Everything the first two movies built up towards has been smashed to pieces! And for what? To try to capture a kid that has 15 sec. of screentime? The only REAL fighting takes place on an island for about 15 min of the movie.

And for all who have seen the movie, what was up with it being night all of a sudden? (You know what I mean)

If you are comparing the movie to the other three movies, what a lame, anti-climatic installation!

Next, we shall compare the movie to the Marvel universe.

Problem numero uno: The Phoenix. You know, I am actually ok if she doesn't look like some giant flaming bird. But you know what? That flaming bird blew up planets. PLANETS! What did Jean/Phoenix do in the movie? NOTHING! The only lame things she did were giving Charles an untimely, UNMOTIVATED death and melt a bunch of no-name mutants.

Problem numero dos: Ragtag band of mutants. WTF? We get new mutants like blowfish doogan and Speedy Gonzales, but no Gambit? No Jubilee? Where are the REAL characters??? I don't know of anyone who gives a RAT about "Level 2 Mutant Number 1".

Problem numero tres: Where the hell was Rogue? She was THE MAIN CHARACTER (along with Wolverine), and she was there only at the beginning with some jealousy issues and then at the end as a "non-mutant"? Where do people come up with this crud?

Problem numero quatro: Baddies. Your heroes are only as good as their villians. Who was the bad guy in this one? Was it Jean? I would beg to differ, because she didn't really do anything. Magneto? Nope, they made him out to be a sympathetic character. The government? They would have been, had they been around. Juggernaut? He was too busy spiting out internet spoof references (though I enjoyed them tremendously). So who was the bad guy?

Problem numero cinco: Magneto? Why!? Why loose your powers over a dart gun!?

If I were just rating the movie based on the genre, I would say that it was pretty good, but as a sequel and as a tribute to the marvel universe, I was sorely disappointed.
 
I left before the end credits were done. Anyone wanta fill me in on what happened at the very end?

I liked the film, but it felt quite anti-climatic for all the crap that went down in it.

I liked Beast, he was a happy addition. I really enjoyed how he fought.

I loved the one shot when they formed the line. The dolly shot of them all in a row, that looked great.

If they had taken a boat to the island instead of the bridge, I'm sure they could have suprised the guards and maybe taken the place over with little problem(and maybe saved 20 million for some better mutant vs. mutant fights).

Rogue, Cyclops, and Mystique deserved better fates(ie better parts) than what they got. Angel didn't serve any purpose whatsoever, they could have just as easily developed a cure strictly to combat what Magneto had been doing in the last 2 films.

I'd say it's better than 2, but not as good as 1. Decent enough popcorn flick. Better than Davinci, but not as fun as MI3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top