SpandexFan
Civilian
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2003
- Messages
- 496
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 50%.
That means it's not a lousy film, just a movie that everyone can't universally agree was a great flick.
It had me going up until Charles Xavier's death. That's the kind of death you save until the end of the movie.
That's where I'm going with this. We all know the X-Men comics are full of death and pestilence. Nothing is worse than being a mutant. The problem is this happens over a period of years and years. When you try and fit all the tragedies of mutant-kind into one two hour movie... well, you can have problems.
If you watch some of the classic team action buster movies -- The Dirty Dozen, The Magnificent Seven -- and so on, you'll notice one thing..... most of the heroes died in the first film!
And that is why so many critics hate this film. Star Trek only killed Spock after a bazillion TV shows and a few movies. They also brought him back. X-Men was headed that way. Then they killed Mystique (for all intents and purposes), then the audience finds out Cyclops is dead, then Professor X blows up in a million tiny shards.... regardless of what happens next, you've already lost half the audience.
Fair or not, peeps expect a popcorn summer flick. They want action, but they want consistency. You can't start killing off mutant after mutant like they were only five minute cameo appearances when the franchise has already established many of these actors and actresses and their portrayals in the hearts and minds of cinema goers everywhere. No matter what the story, you lose the fanbase.
Hugh Jackman was right. This really is the last film. After eliminating so many of our favorite mutants, they can't just up and start a sequel. This was the official suicide of the X-Men movie franchise. Sorry true believers, but you can't convince me there is a future for the X-Men after this armageddon.
So anyways, those are my thoughts on why X-Men 3 hasn't been as well received as the past two films. It's not the director. I think Ratner used several clever tricks in filming this sequel and personally feel Singer would have brought nothing more to the table unless he was a better writer. I believe it's the screenplay. Blame the director for signing off on it I guess, but this movie is simply trying to compress two, three, maybe even four decades of mutant tragedy into one two hour film.
That means it's not a lousy film, just a movie that everyone can't universally agree was a great flick.
It had me going up until Charles Xavier's death. That's the kind of death you save until the end of the movie.
That's where I'm going with this. We all know the X-Men comics are full of death and pestilence. Nothing is worse than being a mutant. The problem is this happens over a period of years and years. When you try and fit all the tragedies of mutant-kind into one two hour movie... well, you can have problems.
If you watch some of the classic team action buster movies -- The Dirty Dozen, The Magnificent Seven -- and so on, you'll notice one thing..... most of the heroes died in the first film!
And that is why so many critics hate this film. Star Trek only killed Spock after a bazillion TV shows and a few movies. They also brought him back. X-Men was headed that way. Then they killed Mystique (for all intents and purposes), then the audience finds out Cyclops is dead, then Professor X blows up in a million tiny shards.... regardless of what happens next, you've already lost half the audience.
Fair or not, peeps expect a popcorn summer flick. They want action, but they want consistency. You can't start killing off mutant after mutant like they were only five minute cameo appearances when the franchise has already established many of these actors and actresses and their portrayals in the hearts and minds of cinema goers everywhere. No matter what the story, you lose the fanbase.
Hugh Jackman was right. This really is the last film. After eliminating so many of our favorite mutants, they can't just up and start a sequel. This was the official suicide of the X-Men movie franchise. Sorry true believers, but you can't convince me there is a future for the X-Men after this armageddon.
So anyways, those are my thoughts on why X-Men 3 hasn't been as well received as the past two films. It's not the director. I think Ratner used several clever tricks in filming this sequel and personally feel Singer would have brought nothing more to the table unless he was a better writer. I believe it's the screenplay. Blame the director for signing off on it I guess, but this movie is simply trying to compress two, three, maybe even four decades of mutant tragedy into one two hour film.