Days of Future Past The Official X-Men: First Class Rate and Review Thread

[kedrell]

Well, Iron Man 2 was a mess in my view and Marvel's own Hulk didn't do any better than the Ang Lee/Universal version.

Plus we've had the typical studio politics - a recast Rhodey/War Machine and also a recast Bruce Banner, and all the behind-the-scenes dramas that went with those manoeuvrings...

And yet general fan consensus(which is not so indicative of whether a movie is actually good so much as it's indicative of it being 'well liked') would give a thumbs up to all 4 of the MCU films released so far. AngHulk has never and will never get that.Nor should it, IMO(that artsy-fartsy, abortion of a movie simply sucked @$$).

The recasts so far have not lead to them making a film that fan consensus would give a thumbs down to. Recasts happen, you deal and move on.

The only 2 Fox superhero films that you could honestly say had fans giving their thumbs up to are the first 2 X-Men movies.

 

[danoyse]

SM2 hasn't aged well at all. Watching it now, it's a campy mess full of non stop cheese and over acting.

It's still better than Turn Off The Dark. Actually my 3-year-old nephew's Spiderman sneakers that light up were more entertaining than Turn Off The Dark.

I actually liked SM1 better than SM2.

 

[kedrell]

marvel films are good but not anything more than just good films they dont feel challenging in any sense no risks and all their films have the same formula

Uh, so what? That's good and has allowed them to maintain a quality unheard of in this genre of movie.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Another tweet from devin

I hope they drop the old X-MEN movie continuity and just keep going with this one. I really am surprised at how fully I loved this film.

 

[J.Howlett]

EnDz0n3,

That's the quote that got me. To put that into perspective, Devin gave X2 an 8.5, I think, when he was over at chud.com. He liked the film a lot, even though he put Spider-Man 2 over it a year later when that film was released.

To say to completely forget the existing continuity in favor of going forward in a completely new directing? I'm completely flabbergasted.

 

[JP]

It's still better than Turn Off The Dark. Actually my 3-year-old nephew's Spiderman sneakers that light up were more entertaining than Turn Off The Dark.

I actually liked SM1 better than SM2.

Agreed on both accounts.

 

[kedrell]

Whether Devin likes it is really a non-issue for me. I've never much taken to his way of looking at movies. I put more stock in Drew McWeeny. Thankfully, he liked this movie too.

 

[Project862006]

read devin's tweets wow he loves this movie

i cant wait

 

[J.Howlett]

I can't for the life of me see this film surpassing X2. That films still owns, eight years later.

 

[Mulholland-Jr]

SM2 hasn't aged well at all. Watching it now, it's a campy mess full of non stop cheese and over acting.

Man I'm still a sucker for Spider-Man 2.

1. X2
2. Spider-Man 2
3. X1
4. The Incredible Hulk
5. Iron Man
6. Spider-Man
7. Thor

everything else I hated.

 

[kedrell]

I see it happening easily. But then I was never more than mildly happy with X2.

 

[X-Maniac]

Marvel makes good popcorn comic book films. They're fun.

TDK and X2 are just fantastic films in general. My gold standards for this genre.

I did think Thor started to go beyond just being fun. There was a sense of weight/depth in places, though not as much as there could have been.

 

[kedrell]

SM2 hasn't aged well at all. Watching it now, it's a campy mess full of non stop cheese and over acting.

That's how I've felt about Raimi's entire franchise for many years now. I was initially much more taken with SM2 but then Batman Begins came out a year later and to me it was kinda like "SM2? Huh, what's that?".

 

[J.Howlett]

Spider-Man 2's a great film, if you don't think too logically about it, especially the logic behind the action.

As it were, if I had to rate the top Marvel films (co-productions/Marvel Studios)...starting in 1998 to the present, it'd go something like this:

X2
Spider-Man 2
Hulk
Iron Man

Then, basically a combination of X-Men, Blade, Blade 2 and Thor....

Is First Class going to leap frog over all of those...? June 3rd needs to hurry up...

 

[Storm22]

I can't for the life of me see this film surpassing X2. That films still owns, eight years later.

I watched the X2 DVD again the other night. It really is not just one of the best comic book movies, but a really great movie in general. Brilliant.

 

[kedrell]

I did think Thor started to go beyond just being fun. There was a sense of weight/depth in places, though not as much as there could have been.

See to me Thor's the most depth-less of all the MCU films. I still enjoy it though. I don't necessarily equate depth with being good. I sure as hell ain't no cine'sta. TIH is deeper than Thor but Thor is still the slightly better film.

 

[J.Howlett]

Storm,

It is. It just flows beautifully. Everything about that film just works.

 

[J.Howlett]

kedrell,

I would say that The Incredible Hulk has the least amount of depth of all the Marvel Studio films. It's just sort of there...nothing more.

 

[EnDz0n3]

All this praise for X2 reminds me just why I love coming to this forum. But like J. Howlett, I don't think I'm ready for X2 to be second best yet. LOL

 

[Project862006]

i think it can be better than x 2 because unlike singer vaughn has been able to blend drama,comedy,action in a way singer has'nt and not to mention vaughn is more versatile when it comes to genres

he has done a British crime movie ,a sci fi/fantasy movie, a gritty real comic book movie ,and now a 1960 era bond type comic book movie

 

[kedrell]

kedrell,

I would say that The Incredible Hulk has the least amount of depth of all the Marvel Studio films. It's just sort of there...nothing more.

I guess that depends on how you define 'depth'. Thor is basically a movie about a guy who needs to be good so he can have his magic mallet back so he can fight monsters again. Pretty shallow, if you ask me. But it was executed tremendously and so I say it's a quite good film. Depth isn't required. In fact in some cases, depth better not be there as it'll just insult our intelligence.

 

[JP]

I did think Thor started to go beyond just being fun. There was a sense of weight/depth in places, though not as much as there could have been.

It just felt very small to me. A film like Thor should have felt bigger. I thought it was good fun, and I enjoyed it, though.

 

[Raiden]

marvel films are good but not anything more than just good films they dont feel challenging in any sense no risks and all their films have the same formula

Well, keep in mind that aside from IM2, all of the Marvel Studio movies are origin movies, so I do think they have had to play it a bit safe, not to mention they have had their eye on the Avengers and all the movies are a prelude to that big crossover movies. The so-called "genre-defining" movies in the superhero genre are SM2, X2, and TDK, all follow-ups of their respective origin movies. I think once the Avengers are done, and the IM/Thor/Cap movies return to their franchise, we'll get to see sequels that will be done with more freedom and (hopefully) more risky storytelling. However, I don't see there's anything wrong with good, solid movies, and that's what Marvel Studio is striving for. This is why even their worst outing to date (IM2) did not reach the kind of lows like other superhero movies such as SM3, X3, FF, GR, and other Schemaucher Batman & post-Donner Superman movies did.

i think it can be better than x 2 because unlike singer vaughn has been able to blend drama,comedy,action in a way singer has'nt and not to mention vaughn is more versatile when it comes to genres

he has done a British crime movie ,a sci fi/fantasy movie, a gritty real comic book movie ,and now a 1960 era bond type comic book movie

I also like Vaughn, and if I were in charge of Marvel Studio I'd ask him to shoot other Marvel superhero movies, if he's not tied with future FC sequels.

 

[kedrell]

i think it can be better than x 2 because unlike singer vaughn has been able to blend drama,comedy,action in a way singer has'nt and not to mention vaughn is more versatile when it comes to genres

he has done a British crime movie ,a sci fi/fantasy movie, a gritty real comic book movie ,and now a 1960 era bond type comic book movie

I've suspected this film might be better than X-2 from the moment when I saw it's teaser. Leaving aside the fact that I think Vaughn is a better director than Singer, that teaser implied a level of thinking things through and sheer cleverness that X-2 only had nailed in a couple of scenes for me. I saw nearly that much just in XM:FC's teaser and subsequent footage. Things like making the costumes work. Singer's X-Men films just gave up on trying to cleverly make them work and said "Aww, just put'em all in black leather cause we can't figure out how else to do it". X-2 gave up too often and I thought it suffered for stuff like that(many other superhero films at the time were doing similar things so it wasn't alone).

 

[Figs]

So the embargo for the critics gets lifted this Wednesday correct?