So there you go: X2 was the peak of the X-Men series

[darkrayaelaine]

x2 was definetely better than x1. i think brian singer should have been the one to direct x3. the story doesent follow the previous movies and it doesent make much sense. its good but i would have been better if brett kept his hands of the project.

 

[Papa Burgundy]

x2 was definetely better than x1. i think brian singer should have been the one to direct x3. the story doesent follow the previous movies and it doesent make much sense. its good but i would have been better if brett kept his hands of the project.

yea i think he wanted to direct it but after he was done with superman returns (which shouldve been higher on this list seriouisly) but fox was furious when he accepted sr so they hired brett ratner.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

Yah X2 was an amazing excellent film that pretty much defined the superhero genre for me...it was then owned by spider-man 2 a year later and then owned by Batman Begins a year after that. But it is still one of my favourite films.

I really wish they would make X3. Singers got so much on his plate...oh well i guess X2's cliffhanger is better then a rushed, poorly written, character butchering sequal that could possibly leave a sour taste in the mouths of fans. IMO we should all just relax, and take a deep breath after all, theres no need to go out and hire Brett Ratner or someone..

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I really wish they would make X3. Singers got so much on his plate...oh well i guess X2's cliffhanger is better then a rushed, poorly written, character butchering sequal that could possibly leave a sour taste in the mouths of fans. IMO we should all just relax, and take a deep breath after all, theres no need to go out and hire Brett Ratner or someone..

Lol, yeah, I’d like to play that game too. Pass it on!

X2 was the most thrilling indeed. Sure it wasn’t as serious as X1 and was outright silly at times but it delivered nonetheless. I enjoyed the action, the visuals and the characters all together. The music was wonderful too. It works for some great lighthearted action entertainment.

And I am also one of those who would like Ratner’s X3 to have never existed. The overblown action and the death drama wasn’t enough for me to care. Like my girlfriend said - it would've been enjoyable enough, if only they had written better dialog.

 

[Angamb]

I think if X3 was a two hour movie, people would be more satisfied, but the 1:30 was one of the biggest mistakes in the franchise.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

That depends on what and how much you wana tell. To cram it in so much was a mistake. Despite the two story lines and the underdeveloped characters, the emphasis was on the action. It didn’t justify the plot that could’ve been so much larger.

And about Wolverine:
I didn’t feel like Wolverine was the central character in X1. They were all developed nicely. So I didn’t mind him to take the major role in X2, since it was essentially the cliffhanger in X1 just like Phoenix was in X2. And of course the mistake was to make him such a big role in X3. They ruined the character by making him the leader and giving him those lame moral monologues. And as for the Wolverine movie - now I see it as a mere marketing ploy to exploit the character even further. Logan is drastically overdeveloped.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

I think if X3 was a two hour movie, people would be more satisfied, but the 1:30 was one of the biggest mistakes in the franchise.

What's the difference if there's going to be another half an hour of pointless, brainless, contrived dialoge and random, "certain character-centric", forced action scenes?

I think the fact for most who dislike the film is: length wouldn't make it any better when you look at what was done with the time they had.

 

[Angamb]

more time = more scenes, and probably dialogue ones, so = a bit more development. Easy.

 

[xmenfilesfan05]

That equation doesn't work for X3, considering it would still be the same writers that gave us the crap we saw on screen.

 

[Angamb]

yes, the writers would have been the same, but the scenes no. And more dialogue scenes would have made the movie a bit better.

 

[CFE]

X2, IMO, is Marvel's best film.

Yes, even more so than Spiderman 2.

CFE

 

[flavio_lebeau]

X2, IMO, is Marvel's best film.

Yes, even more so than Spiderman 2.

CFE

 

[Cyrusbales]

X2, IMO, is Marvel's best film.

Yes, even more so than Spiderman 2.

CFE

Co-signed.

 

[X-Maniac]

I've considered this and, as stated elsewhere, I think X1 is my favourite of the three. It is the most like the X-Men of the comics. The mansion, Mystique, Cerebro, X-jet, Magneto and his funny helmet, Magneto's island lair, etc, all brought to life so well. Cyclops was present and a leader, Storm had an accent, we saw a fantastic opening scene with Magneto's origin. The themes and roles are all there.

X2 has nice human drama elements but begins to stray from the source - Nightcrawler becomes a potential assassin under mental control, Stryker becomes a general, Mastermind becomes Stryker's son, Deathstryke becomes Stryker's mind-controlled assistant. But the comicbook ideas are there - a clever combination of God Loves Man Kills, Operation Zero Tolerance (which includes a mansion raid), and the Phoenix Saga. Cyclops was markedly absent and oddly reappears at the dam, but the Phoenix development was marvellously achieved. Late changes to the script seem apparent at the dam where it becomes a little 'bitty' and sagging, with various people wandering around doing their own thing. Jean's sacrifice was very nicely done, though not a emotionally powerful as it might have been (many reviews called it 'flat', 'anti-climactic' and other things). A shame that the Danger Room, Sentinels, and Archangel bit the dust. The movie isn't as tight as it could be, and there are a few plot conveniences, so for me it's not as great as X1 as an X-Men adaptation. The themes are all there, not so much the roles.

X3 is the most dynamic and entertaining, but it also strays from the source. We all know that it had the least care and intelligence... because it was rushed together by the studio. Neither the themes nor the roles are accurate.

As X1 is the only one where the source material's themes and roles remain intact, then it is my favourite.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

so for me it's not as great as X1 as an X-Men adaptation.

And those are the key words in your review. But what about looking at it not as an adaptation but instead as a movie by itself?
You make excellent points. Most of the stuff you said I agree with completely. That's why I respect X1 for what it is. Heck you comments are tempting me to revisit my opinion on the two films even now. I most of the time tend to choose those kinds of movies over the likes of X2 or SM3. And yes, I admit that X2 is more on the easy and lighter side of entertainment.

 

[X-Maniac]

And those are the key words in your review. But what about looking at it not as an adaptation but instead as a movie by itself?

Movies can be looked at in so many different ways. Even the worst (least acclaimed) movies can be enjoyed as 'guilty pleasures.'

I regard X-1 as the best in all ways. As an X-Men movie - and as a movie.
There is suspense in the story, great emotional drama at the end, great chemistry between Rogue and Wolverine. We clearly feel for Rogue's plight and her death and revival in that machine. Do we feel the same for the kidnapped children, for missing Scott and Xavier, in X2? Nope.

To be honest, I don't see why people have orgasms over X2. It's a rather quirky character drama (which happens to feature the X-Men). The theme is less clear than X1. X1 was clearly a socio-political sci-fi drama with government discrimination/persecution (the registration act) at the heart of it and two different sides (Xavier/Magneto) representing the Malcolm X/Luther King viewpoints.

X2 is about the X-Men versus a rather embittered general whose own son is a mutant - it's not about society, it's about one lunatic. His bitterness over mutants is to some extent justified - his own wife killed herself because of her son's illusions. What is this movie telling us? That lunatics exist? Well, I knew that.

In X2, Stryker took the role of X1's Magneto as the villain out to change things to suit his needs... but who took the role of society/government? Not Stryker, as he was very much a lone operative, a maverick. Bobby's parents are the only representation of a wider theme (typical parents, typical society reaction to something different). Maybe Stryker also represents bigotry taken to an extreme... but it is an extreme. The registration act was shelved and never mentioned ever again!

As a story, what is X2 telling us? The story is the bottom line here, not the visuals or cinematography or production designs. A movie must be judged by its narrative content.

One thing X3 did do quite nicely was in showing the world of mutants out there, and the reactions of society and government. Although X3 did present it all in a very right-wing way (mutation is an abnormality that can be fixed, changing one's essential nature to fit in is fine and can even be forced on you).

I guess the three movies can be summed up as:

X1 - mutants exist
X2 - mutants have the right to exist
X3 - mutants have the right to choose whether they exist

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

True enough. I may be repeating myself but I like serious toned and philosophical films much more than I like the next big budget blockbuster flick and X2 was definitely Hollywoodised. But it was still fun, while X1 despite your excellent points, which I agree with, never managed to be fully one or the other for me.

 

[X-Maniac]

True enough. I may be repeating myself but I like serious toned and philosophical films much more than I like the next big budget blockbuster flick and X2 was definitely Hollywoodised. But it was still fun, while X1 despite your excellent points, which I agree with, never managed to be fully one or the other for me.

I like all three of the X-movies for different reasons. It's hard to choose a favourite. As an X-fan, it's also easy to just be happy with seeing them on screen.

X1 just has something classic about it, even though it also has flaws. X2 starts to feel Hollywoodised and the sense of threat/suspense/urgency is lacking in places. X3 is more popcorn, an attempt to relate more closely to the comics and cartoons... which meant it related less to the previous two movies...and it ended up relating less to the comics than the previous two (!!!!) with stuff like Cyclops dying, Rogue being cured, Wolverine becoming leader... I can see why some people detest X3 and the studio should have been more careful with it.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I like all three of the X-movies for different reasons. It's hard to choose a favourite. As an X-fan, it's also easy to just be happy with seeing them on screen.

Heh, I can imagine. It’s good when each instalment in a franchise has its own unique charms. What I can’t say about Harry Potter…

X1 just has something classic about it, even though it also has flaws.

That's similar to how I feel about the first Spider-Man.

X3 is more popcorn, an attempt to relate more closely to the comics and cartoons... which meant it related less to the previous two movies...and it ended up relating less to the comics than the previous two (!!!!) with stuff like Cyclops dying, Rogue being cured, Wolverine becoming leader... I can see why some people detest X3 and the studio should have been more careful with it.

You see, as I said, I judge movies by what they offer not what they are supposed to portray, so despite all the adaptation inconsistencies it was just a rushed flick with no real substance. It’s like the twin opposite of X1 - the first one can hardly be defined by genre and yet manages to be its own thing while X3 tries to be too many things and never really achieves any greatness worthy of a rewatch. X2 has a lot of clichés too, every single movie does these days, but despite that they were all orchestrated in a professional and tasteful manner.

 

[X-Maniac]

Heh, I can imagine. It’s good when each instalment in a franchise has its own unique charms. What I can’t say about Harry Potter…


That's similar to how I feel about the first Spider-Man.


You see, as I said, I judge movies by what they offer not what they are supposed to portray, so despite all the adaptation inconsistencies it was just a rushed flick with no real substance. It’s like the twin opposite of X1 - the first one can hardly be defined by genre and yet manages to be its own thing while X3 tries to be too many things and never really achieves any greatness worthy of a rewatch. X2 has a lot of clichés too, every single movie does these days, but despite that they were all orchestrated in a professional and tasteful manner.

Well, X3 can be judged in various ways:

1) as a movie on its own terms
2) as a continuation of the previous two
3) as an adaptation of comicbook/animated source material

When something is adapted from an original source, some comparison with that source will be inevitable, especially by fans of the source. Changes from the source will be open to comment, debate, and criticism. Especially if they are radical changes.

But the first criterion above is, as you say, the important one.

I think of the X-movies as their own continuity, rather like the various comicbook offshoots.

 

[JP]

Looking at X-Men films under Fox, I'm beginning to think Magneto/X-Men: Origins might end up being the best X-film made. That is if Goyer can get his **** together.

 

[BMM]

^ I think it will depend on who they cast as Magneto and Xavier. I think I may have taken McKellen and Stewart for granted.

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

Well, X3 can be judged in various ways:
1) as a movie on its own terms
2) as a continuation of the previous two
3) as an adaptation of comicbook/animated source material
When something is adapted from an original source, some comparison with that source will be inevitable, especially by fans of the source. Changes from the source will be open to comment, debate, and criticism. Especially if they are radical changes.
But the first criterion above is, as you say, the important one.

Yeah, I understand that. And yes, the first is the most important to me. I personally would switch the 2nd and 3rd points with each other. I usually take your 2nd point for granted. With directors, writers and leading actors changing there’s bound to be some inconsistency with continuity, so I’m not so adamant about it, in fact I encourage it from time to time.

I think of the X-movies as their own continuity, rather like the various comicbook offshoots.

Exactly, it’s just like any other writer taking over from Stan Lee. It’s a different vision every time.

Looking at X-Men films under Fox, I'm beginning to think Magneto/X-Men: Origins might end up being the best X-film made. That is if Goyer can get his **** together.

With Ian gone and Goyer on it I’m not too excited about the Magneto spin off. I learned to be pessimistic about Fox. I fear it turning out to be like another Hannibal Rising crap.
Now Hugh and Benioff sound like a promising mix to me.

 

[JP]

Ian is gone?

 

[Trevor Goodchild]

I'm sorry but, as ironic as it sounds, I didn't see any confirmation that he would reprise his role in his own spin off movie yet.