How much do you really care about X3 being only 103 minutes?

[JokerNick]

Ratner has his good moments. One of the best is Red Dragon, in which he put the franchise back in the right path.

But he got it (X-Men) in the middle of a nasty confusion, and has Fox over him, and can be in his bad days.

I hope the movie is decent. I doubt very much it will be the great movie I was expecting, but I still hope Ratner is in his good days and deliver a decent small X-Men.

like i said, watch Manhunter, then watch Red Dragon......... then you will understand what a good director is

 

[Maze]

Poeple aroudn here just don't relize why people don't like ratner, and it's kinda sad........ what movies has this guy done that are great??? none, red Dragon was good, but it's a remake of a GREAT film, Manhunter, which was done by Mann (Heat, Collateral, and the upcoming Maimi Vice)..... Rush Hours were fun, but they aren't memroble, I will never own them on DVD, and will only tune in when they are on TV if nothing else is on....... what else did he do?? Family Man (chick flick if you ask me)........... i also love that everyone says we are being pesimistic for no reason because we haven't seen the film yet, last time I checked, they haven't seen it yet either, so why are they being so optomistic....... I'm a realist.

yup i agree.

Ps: Family man as a whole is his best movie imo..It's a sweet, touching tale.
Nothing great in any ways , it is really a connventionnal hollywood movie, but it achieved its goal..that's the only movie from him oddly that gave me some hopes that he could get at least the humanity of the Xmen.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Poeple aroudn here just don't relize why people don't like ratner, and it's kinda sad........ what movies has this guy done that are great??? none, red Dragon was good, but it's a remake of a GREAT film, Manhunter, which was done by Mann (Heat, Collateral, and the upcoming Maimi Vice)..... Rush Hours were fun, but they aren't memroble, I will never own them on DVD, and will only tune in when they are on TV if nothing else is on....... what else did he do?? Family Man (chick flick if you ask me)........... i also love that everyone says we are being pesimistic for no reason because we haven't seen the film yet, last time I checked, they haven't seen it yet either, so why are they being so optomistic....... I'm a realist.

Totally agree and i'm the same, Ratner has never ever done anything special and never will IMO.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

like i said, watch Manhunter, then watch Red Dragon......... then you will understand what a good director is

Man, I saw both. Red Dragon is still better. That overture is very difficult to beat, from the music hall till Hannibal's stabbing. It's great.

The way Ratner managed the troubled relationships in the movie is very elegant and confident. Great actors (especially Ralph Fiennes), great cinematography.

 

[JokerNick]

yup i agree.

Ps: Family man as a whole is his best movie imo..It's a sweet, touching tale.
Nothing great in any ways , it is really a connventionnal hollywood movie, but it achieved its goal..that's the only movie from him oddly that gave me some hopes that he could get at least the humanity of the Xmen.

and that's what Singer got right, action sequences by themselves don't make a great movie because if you don't care about the people involved, it comes off very empty and pointless, and forgettable

ask any decent film critic to name there top 3 comic book movies, X2 will be in there, and there's a reason for that.......

just because people are being harsh on this film before it's released doesn't mean we hate the film, it's the exact opposite, I want nothing more then this film to be great, and that's why people are harsh on it before it's release.........

 

[Maze]

Ratner has his good moments. One of the best is Red Dragon, in which he put the franchise back in the right path.

But he got it (X-Men) in the middle of a nasty confusion, and has Fox over him, and can be in his bad days.

I hope the movie is decent. I doubt very much it will be the great movie I was expecting, but I still hope Ratner is in his good days and deliver a decent small X-Men.

That's what i expect too.

Ps: with red dragon,i agree that Ratner tried put the franchise on the right path , but while it's a fairly good movie , i didn't find it very involving as a whole ..the movie is not very imaginative ,even very superficial,i have seen all that Ratner has done in this movie better elsewhere , and his actors ( apart from Phiennes and E.Wtason) were really boring ( Norton imo has not scratch the surface of who Will Graham is as character..Petersen was superior in every way imo.) And even more,If i compare it to manhunter it really fall short imo..

 

[kentshakespeare]

That's not true.

If that's so, how could we know Stanley Kubrick, Federico Fellini, Orson Welles, Ingmar Bergman, François Truffaut are some of the best directors ever? Is that any doubt about it?

Cinema is an art, and an art (any art) relies on technique. Some directors and writers are masters in it, others invented new ways to tell a story with a camera, and those are the great ones.

In every art, if one learns enough, one can say who's the best.

I don't accept this at all. we don't know kubrick, et al are the best directors ever. we believe so based upon our pre-conceived cultural notions of quality. there's always doubt about it.

you can make judgements based upon thes director's technical mastery of their craft, but that doesn't determine a film's worth. there's no objective way of proving that satyricon is a better film than digby, the biggest dog in the world. they have different aims, tell different stories and have different reasons for being. bunuel made great surrealist films, but wouldn't have been so hot at directing lord of the rings or x-men. likewise, I wouldn't trust paul verhoeven to make a film like elephant.

art cinema is not necessarily better than trashy blockbuster cinema, and I think it's snobbery to assume so. don't get me wrong, I'm functionally as much a snob as anyone else, and I'll gladly hurl verbal anvils at those who prefer coldplay to sun ra, but I don't believe there's any fundamental truth in my prejudices.

anyway, off-topic and should be working...

 

[JokerNick]

Man, I saw both. Red Dragon is still better. That overture is very difficult to beat, from the music hall till Hannibal's stabbing. It's great.

The way Ratner managed the troubled relationships in the movie is very elegant and confident. Great actors (especially Ralph Fiennes), great cinematography.

the book manhunter never focused on the Hannibal Lector side of the story, that was mearly a side plot, they (meaning ratner, fox, whoever did this) decided to take a great story and splice it with Silence of the Lambs, and that is not what manhunter was supposed to be about, it is a poormans silence of the lambs, that's it............ sorry

 

[Maze]

just because people are being harsh on this film before it's released doesn't mean we hate the film, it's the exact opposite, I want nothing more then this film to be great, and that's why people are harsh on it before it's release.........

Exactly.

(even if i'm going to take an extreme exemple lol ), that's like saying that you don't wan't a dear friend to recover in a hospital , because you don't like the remplacement doctor based on his past operations.

 

[JokerNick]

Exactly.

(even if i'm going to take an extreme exemple lol ), that's like saying that you don't wan't a dear friend to recover in a hospital , because you don't like the remplacement doctor based on his past operations.

I think it's like saying, I really want my friend to get better, but the doctor that's treating him is not the best in the field, there's better doctors out there, and I rather see him in their hands......... good analogy

 

[Mr Sensitive]

I don't accept this at all. we don't know kubrick, et al are the best directors ever. we believe so based upon our pre-conceived cultural notions of quality. there's always doubt about it.

you can make judgements based upon thes director's technical mastery of their craft, but that doesn't determine a film's worth. there's no objective way of proving that satyricon is a better film than digby, the biggest dog in the world. they have different aims, tell different stories and have different reasons for being. bunuel made great surrealist films, but wouldn't have been so hot at directing lord of the rings or x-men. likewise, I wouldn't trust paul verhoeven to make a film like elephant.

art cinema is not necessarily better than trashy blockbuster cinema, and I think it's snobbery to assume so. don't get me wrong, I'm functionally as much a snob as anyone else, and I'll gladly hurl verbal anvils at those who prefer coldplay to sun ra, but I don't believe there's any fundamental truth in my prejudices.

anyway, off-topic and should be working...

There is objective way to read, watch movies, understand exhibitions, etc.

All those directors and his movies are by far more important than any thrashy crap you could mention. That's not snobbism.

Snobbism is when you pretend being something of high regard that you are not.

Taste is one thing. We like whatever we want, and that's fine. Quality is another thing. Deeper understanding and usage of some medium is another.

Those I mentioned are conditioned by cultural notions of quality? Of course. But their medium also. Their medium is a result of that partiicular culture. And in that particular culture, i.e., the cinema, they are some of the best.

And that digby thing you said is not even worth a footnote.

What's the difference? If you could ask one of those directors, they won't say they were making "art movies". This is for second-rate Sundance crap. They were making movies. Just that.

Their subtle understanding of human nature, of art, and of a very specific and refined way of making cinema make them the best. Cultural relativism is pure hogwash.

 

[JokerNick]

There is objective way to read, watch movies, understand exhibitions, etc.

All those directors and his movies are by far more important than any thrashy crap you could mention. That's not snobbism.

Snobbism is when you pretend being something of high regard that you are not.

Taste is one thing. We like whatever we want, and that's fine. Quality is another thing. Deeper understanding and usage of some medium is another.

Those I mentioned are conditioned by cultural notions of quality? Of course. But their medium also. Their medium is a result of that partiicular culture. And in that particular culture, i.e., the cinema, they are some of the best.

And that digby thing you said is not even worth a footnote.

What's the difference? If you could ask one of those directors, they won't say they were making "art movies". This is for second-rate Sundance crap. They were making movies. Just that.

Their subtle understanding of human nature, of art, and of a very specific and refined way of making cinema make them the best. Cultural relativism is pure hogwash.

well put... except that I beleive Art, Importance and quality is in the eye of the beholder.....................

 

[Mr Sensitive]

the book manhunter never focused on the Hannibal Lector side of the story, that was mearly a side plot, they (meaning ratner, fox, whoever did this) decided to take a great story and splice it with Silence of the Lambs, and that is not what manhunter was supposed to be about, it is a poormans silence of the lambs, that's it............ sorry

There is nothing to be sorry about. It's ok to disagree.

My point is: I judge a movie for its results, and not by the name of the director or what the book said (and I'm not implying you did that).

You know, Burgess never liked what Kubrick did to The Clockwork Orange, nor Stephen King liked what he did with The Shining. But Kubrick knew he was making something different.

I know this is a reductio ad absurdum comparison, but it is just to show how an adaptation can go far from the book and be good.

I thought it was a great story, with great acting, and an almost great direction, after that Hannibal crap.

It came after the second book, andd in that Demme adaptation Hannibal became the first character. In Hannibal (by Scott) he is the only character.

I think Ratner did well in balancing the expectations about Hannibal and the need to tell a different story. He didn't fell for the luxury of a erudite übercriminal like Scott, who botched his own movie.

 

[kentshakespeare]

again, I disagree. cultural hierarchies make no sense.

you see, it's terms like "better" and "best" I have a problem with here. those are terms entirely informed by opinion. yes, taste is a different unit of measurement than understanding and insight. but I don't accept that "a subtle understanding of human nature and art, presented in a refined way" is, in and of itself, outside of film theory and aesthetic philosophy, in any way somehow superior to pure escapism or unearthing deep feelings of horror or inspiring convulsive laughter via puerile slapstick, for example. they meet different needs in society and in human psychology.

All those directors and his movies are by far more important than any thrashy crap you could mention. That's not snobbism.

that's pretty much the definition of snobbery. important in what sense? in terms of the number of people inspired by them? in terms of developing the form? in terms of conencting with the largest number of people? "importance" has little meaning without qualification. in all seriousness, star wars is a very important film for males of my generation in that it provided a bonding experience and a common cultural language for young men at an eraly stage of their development. from the same period, blade runner may arguably be a more subtle, stylised film, and a more influential work among cineastes, but is it more "important"? it has certainly had less of a social and pscyhological impact. is it "better"? depends what criteria you use...

 

[Maze]

again, I disagree. cultural hierarchies make no sense.

you see, it's terms like "better" and "best" I have a problem with here. those are terms entirely informed by opinion. yes, taste is a different unit of measurement than understanding and insight. but I don't accept that "a subtle understanding of human nature and art, presented in a refined way" is, in and of itself, outside of film theory and aesthetic philosophy, in any way somehow superior to pure escapism or unearthing deep feelings of horror or inspiring convulsive laughter via puerile slapstick, for example. they meet different needs in society and in human psychology.



that's pretty much the definition of snobbery. important in what sense? in terms of the number of people inspired by them? in terms of developing the form? in terms of conencting with the largest number of people? "importance" has little meaning without qualification. in all seriousness, star wars is a very important film for males of my generation in that it provided a bonding experience and a common cultural language for young men at an eraly stage of their development. from the same period, blade runner may arguably be a more subtle, stylised film, and a more influential work among cineastes, but is it more "important"? it has certainly had less of a social and pscyhological impact. is it "better"? depends what criteria you use...

Ok ,thats what you think , nor problem.. but so , respect joe public taste

 

[kentshakespeare]

Ok ,thats what you think , nor problem.. but so , respect joe public taste

never! not while dido and 50 cent continue to draw breath!!

 

[Anthony05]

I watched X2 yesterday and I thought about how the Nightcrawler sequence lasts only 2 minutes or so but is one of my favorite (if not my #1 favorite scene) so.. I really am optimistic about it. If they pace it correctly and leave enough time for a kickass end, I don't see a problem.

 

[PSINGRAPHD]

Cinema is an art, and an art (any art) relies on technique.

Really? Well, I've been involved in the arts all my life and feel it relies on natural talent more than anything else. Technique I would consider more of a tool, used to express the artist's intention. Whether it be the written word, a picture, or what have you. Thought, emotion, and passion are far more important IMO. They are the raw materials needed to fuel human imagination. It's like comparing a garage band to studio musicians. The recording act is definately going to have a more polished sound. But the live act will most likely have more integrity in their audio performance. Any art, in its truest form, is about what the individual is trying to convey, not how they're trying to do it. I mean what would you rather have, style... or substance? Ideally, for me, the answer is both. But if I had to choose, the latter will ALWAYS win out!

In every art, if one learns enough, one can say who's the best.

Is that so? I've always felt that art, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Better yet, I'll use a quote to sum up my opinion:
"Those that cannot DO... teach. And those that cannot teach... CRITIQUE!"
There's a lot of wisdom to be found in that simple little statement if you really think about it. Not the least of which is how some people funnel their shortcomings into an outlet steeped in negativity, trying to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy and ultimately... failure.

 

[JokerNick]

There is nothing to be sorry about. It's ok to disagree.

My point is: I judge a movie for its results, and not by the name of the director or what the book said (and I'm not implying you did that).

You know, Burgess never liked what Kubrick did to The Clockwork Orange, nor Stephen King liked what he did with The Shining. But Kubrick knew he was making something different.

I know this is a reductio ad absurdum comparison, but it is just to show how an adaptation can go far from the book and be good.

I thought it was a great story, with great acting, and an almost great direction, after that Hannibal crap.

It came after the second book, andd in that Demme adaptation Hannibal became the first character. In Hannibal (by Scott) he is the only character.

I think Ratner did well in balancing the expectations about Hannibal and the need to tell a different story. He didn't fell for the luxury of a erudite übercriminal like Scott, who botched his own movie.

I didn't mind Hannibal, I thought it was decent, it had it's shinning moments, namely oldman, but you have to understand that Silence is a classic, and ridley was given an almost unrealistic goal, and that was to make a sequel that measured up to Silence, and that was impossible...... after his faliure, it was easy for them to make another "hannibal Lector" movie, because they new people weren't goning to judge it as hard as Hannibal......... don't get me wrong, I own red dragon, I watched it just the other day, I enjoy the hell out of the film until the last scene where Fiennes is at Nortons house...... I just feel that red dragon was Ratners only good movie, and it's not a great movie..... everyone at Fox makes him sound like he's the next big thing, like the next speilberg or scorscesse (I butchered that spelling), but i think he's "eehhh", nothing special, line him up with Renny Harlin IMO......... look at X3 from my perspective, I loved the first two x-men, I think Singer is a very good director, he's not great, not yet, but he is very very good, fox does not contract him after X2 (shows foxs intellegence, and don't even get me started on them)....... so he leaves to make superman, fox is upset and feels betrayed, they now relize they need to make X3, so they get Vaughn, who is another very good directer IMO, but he leaves under strange circumstances, then they bring in Ratner, who he going to do superman until Singer came along, so now we have him, none of his movies impress me, and the only one I like I mentiones above, he makes questionable casting decissions and ommits chatacters (gambit), I understand Fox is pushing him to get this movie released before superman, but if Ratner was a director that had any pull, he would get them to give him more time, or a better script, instead he goes along with them, and I think fox just threw money at this film, thinking it would turn out better if they did........... yes to first two trailers were very good, but then fox starts comming out with this "last of the x-men series" crap, making us think that this will be the last x-men film, that right there depressed me, why would they do that to what could possibly be the next huge franchise, and when I say huge, I mean like Harry Potter 7 film huge.......... and now this 1 hour 43 running time, this is like a tease when compared to X2,............. yes, this turned into a rant, and all these points have been made before, but I feel that ratner wasn't the right choice, they needed to wait for Singer IMO, Singer said that he would have loved to come back, and infact, they would be in preproduction right now if they chose to do this, we'd be looking at a 2007 release, but you know what, I guarentee this movie would have knocked all our socks off......

 

[kentshakespeare]

Really? Well, I've been involved in the arts all my life and feel it relies on natural talent more than anything else. Technique I would consider more of a tool, used to express the artist's intention. Whether it be the written word, a picture, or what have you. Thought, emotion, and passion are far more important IMO. They are the raw materials needed to fuel human imagination. It's like comparing a garage band to studio musicians. The recording act is definately going to have a more polished sound. But the live act will most likely have more integrity in their audio performance. Any art, in its truest form, is about what the individual is trying to convey, not how they're trying to do it. I mean what would you rather have, style... or substance? Ideally, for me, the answer is both. But if I had to choose, the latter will ALWAYS win out!

In every art, if one learns enough, one can say who's the best.

Is that so? I've always felt that art, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Better yet, I'll use a quote to sum up my opinion:
"Those that cannot DO... teach. And those that cannot teach... CRITIQUE!"
There's a lot of wisdom to be found in that simple little statement if you treally think about it. Not the least of which is how some people funnel their shortcomings into an outlet steeped in negativity, trying to compensate for their feelings of inadequacy and ultimately... failure.

couldn't agree with you more, sir.

 

[Maze]

never! not while dido and 50 cent continue to draw breath!!

Well , what you say don't make any sense so lol

 

[Maze]

Really? Well, I've been involved in the arts all my life and feel it relies on natural talent more than anything else. Technique I would consider more of a tool, used to express the artist's intention. Whether it be the written word, a picture, or what have you. Thought, emotion, and passion are far more important IMO. They are the raw materials needed to fuel human imagination. It's like comparing a garage band to studio musicians. The recording act is definately going to have a more polished sound. But the live act will most likely have more integrity in their audio performance. Any art, in its truest form, is about what the individual is trying to convey, not how they're trying to do it. I mean what would you rather have, style... or substance? Ideally, for me, the answer is both. But if I had to choose, the latter will ALWAYS win out!

who said the contrary?

the few first movies of Burton were more rough , but are better..some people think otherwise , "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder.

but that doesn't change the fact, that when you analyse them in every other level ,than Technique,they are less good.we're not talking about taste there ..i can tell ya that i don't like a lot Kitano (his last few movies are boring to me), but analyzing his work i can tell you why he is considered one of the great.

yup , that's where come the "critical" side.

your definition of criticism is really scorning ..

without criticism, some of the greatest artist of our time would have not became, without doubts, so great.

 

[JokerNick]

who said the contrary?
the few first movies of Burton were more rough , but are better..some people think otherwise , "beauty" is in the eye of the beholder.

but tha doesn't change the fact that when you analyse them in every level they are less good

Hence , where come the "critical" side.

your definition of criticism is really scorning ..

without criticism, some of the greatest artist of our time would have not became so great.

Like Uwe Boll

 

[Maze]

Like Uwe Boll

lol

 

[PSINGRAPHD]

couldn't agree with you more, sir.

Well thank you, I've enjoyed your posts as well. You are obviously a scholar AND a gentleman, two qualities that are hard to come by these days. Especially around here, which is unfortunate when you consider the premise of the X-mythos.

Oh and BTW, I got the 50 Cent joke and will add this: If you hold him down, I'll put the pillow over his head!