X-Men Origins: First Class update

[BentonGrey]

I will never, ever, understand the utter hatred for X3. Nor can I understand how anyone can say Wolverine was in any way better than it. Neither are perfect films, and both are easily considered not as good as the first 2 Singer films, but horrible? worst comic movie(s) ever? Seriously? I know it's been discussed to death on this board, and everyone's got their opinion so there's no need to get into it, but c'mon. If these are even remotely considered the worst of the comic movies, I think we're pretty well off. But in no way do these 2 movies even compare to the crap like the Schumacher Batmans, or even Fantastic Four or Ghost Rider.

Ghostrider!?  You're comparing Ghostrider to the Schumacher Batman films?  Ghostrider was a pretty decent flick, nothing to write home about, but nothing glaringly wrong either.  The Schumacher Batman films had BAT NIPPLES!

[BlueBard]

FF wasn't that bad, IMO.  Yes, they took a lot of liberties, especially where Doom is concerned.  But they had some really awesome action scenes and the acting was okay.

FF2 went further astray and I didn't care for that one so much.  It should have been a better retelling of the Galactus story.

X3 was a horrible retelling of the Dark Phoenix story and way too much of a mashup of many different X-storylines.  It was a mess.  Visually, plotwise, and acting.  About all it managed to accomplish was to be a disturbing movie to watch.

[Tomato]

Ok, here's my categories of movies

Awesome Sauce:
Iron Man (1+2)
Nolan Batman

Good:
Xmen 1+2
Incredible Hulk
Spiderman 1+2

Decent:
Batman (burton)
Spiderman 3
Wolverine
BM Forever (I know, but I'm a two face fanatic. Deal.)
FFour 1+2
Ghost Rider
Watchmen

Bad:
X3
Batman Returns
Hulk
Superman Returns

Offense against nature:
B&R

You'll notice the old Superman films aren't on here... I have not watched them recently enough to have a view on them.

[lugaru]

I mostly agree, just bump everything up one notch since I play devils advocate a lot with comic movies. Some honorable mentions though:

Daredevil: I love old hornhead but despite all its flaws it really had some cool moments. Hope this gets rebooted.

Punisher movies: brutal, funny, but horribly incosistent. Warzone is the victor for me though, it is grim, unforgiving but not too serious for its own good. It also turns The Punisher into a movie monster for criminals.

Ghost Rider: just not that much of a comic book movie... it needed some better villains than those demon dudes. Otherwise it was not all that bad.

Constantine: Not a terrible movie but has very few comic book roots beyond the demonic pact stuff.

Catwoman: Sexy, action packed but shot in the head by awful dialog and editing. Also the suit reminds me more of a mouse than a cat.

The Crow: perfect soundtrack, perfect dark mood, great directing and action packed.

And commenting on a couple that you mention: I have a soft spot for BM forever too, while I'm alergic to camp I did like Two Face and the Riddler in it. Fantastic Four gets beat on too much by comic fans... I think it is the most "comic booky" of the comic movies, fun, funny, full of adventure... just not a good movie at the end of the day. I also like to play devils advocate for Hulk... the editing and drama is perfect, the effects and action too, just near the end it collapses since it lacks a proper villain.

[TheMarvell]

FF wasn't that bad, IMO.  Yes, they took a lot of liberties, especially where Doom is concerned.  But they had some really awesome action scenes and the acting was okay.

FF2 went further astray and I didn't care for that one so much.  It should have been a better retelling of the Galactus story.

X3 was a horrible retelling of the Dark Phoenix story and way too much of a mashup of many different X-storylines.  It was a mess.  Visually, plotwise, and acting.  About all it managed to accomplish was to be a disturbing movie to watch.

See, this is what I don't understand. Why is it ok for FF to take liberties, but not X3? The Phoenix storyline is one of those comic book things that would be incredibly difficult to pull off on film. They kept it in the realm of the films believability and established rules. An entity from another galaxy possessing Jean just wouldn't work. Same thing with Juggernaut and Cytorrak. I'll agree, Jean's character was wasted (the ending where she just stands there is pretty lame) but I don't think it derails the movie to the degree that haters say it does. There was nothing wrong with the acting or the special effects (Wolverine, on the other hand, has specific scenes where the special effects are incredibly bad, like the bathroom scene, but we're talking X3 here). I think people just like to hate on this film because they killed off certain favorite characters.

and Benton, I wasn't comparing Ghost Rider to Schumacher's Batman films (not entirely). I'm merely saying that when it comes to the really bad comic movies, Ghost Rider is a hell of a lot more in the same ballpark as those movies than X3 is.

[Figure Fan]

I thought X3 was pretty good. There were some bad moments as a result of them trying to do too much with too many people, but there were good parts. I think it mostly suffered from a sudden change in tone and direction because of Singer leaving. I think that was the biggest flaw.

[BWPS]

You're wrong! X3 was completely not enjoyable, and almost everything about it was bad. Angel's role was pointless, Juggernaut looked so terrible as a throwaway character, that hedgehog guy looked stupid and the fake Psylocke with the "level three mutant" crap was stupid, the Astonishing X-Men 'cure' plot was poorly done and didn't tie in with the other terrible plot in which Phoenix kills Cyclops and Professor X then walks around with Magneto for a while and then Wolverine stabs her. And then there was something about morlochs and stuff. Boo. And I'm not giving spoiler alerts because they didn't alert me that they were spoiling the franchise.

In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, we get to see Wolverine's origins. We also get to see pure awesomeness at the beginning, and Wolverine fight several people. It's actually good fun action. But at the end, Deadpool is turned into a text adventure controlled monster, and Cyclops and "Emma Frost" just show up for no reason and I think Cyclops has his eyes taken out but it turns out not. Why all of a sudden is Cyclops thrust into a movie where he doesn't belong when he's killed off-camera at the beginning of a movie where he does belong?* Accepting X3 as canon in the movie universe degrades the quality of the rest of the movies.




*Yes, I know it was because they were mad at James Marsden for doing Superman Returns (which is better than both those movies and actually really good at what it tried to be), but still a stupid decision

[Mr. Hamrick]

Ok, here's my categories of movies

Awesome Sauce:
Iron Man (1+2)
Nolan Batman

Good:
Xmen 1+2
Incredible Hulk
Spiderman 1+2

Decent:
Batman (burton)
Spiderman 3
Wolverine
BM Forever (I know, but I'm a two face fanatic. Deal.)
FFour 1+2
Ghost Rider
Watchmen

Bad:
X3
Batman Returns
Hulk
Superman Returns

Offense against nature:
B&R

You'll notice the old Superman films aren't on here... I have not watched them recently enough to have a view on them.

Just for the sake of argument on the Superman films.  Superman 1 and 2 were both great considering when they were made.  Superman 3 was good but most of that was due to Richard Pryor and Robert Vaughn being the villains.  Superman 4 SUCKED so bad that it deserves to be right alongside of Batman and Robin for suck factor.

With regards to X3, I've always maintained that the biggest problem with the film was BRETT RATNER.  I suspect the only reason he got the job was because Red Dragon went well.  Granted, he had Rush Hour 1 and 2 but those films were no reason to give him something like X3.  Honestly, Red Dragon wasn't a good reason to either.  From what I have read, Ratner got the job after Vaughn bailed (who was Singer's replacement) because he had experience with rushed productions due to the first Rush Hour movie.   For what it's worth, he's not had a high profile gig since as a director.  (Though, he has done some stuff in the producer role.)

A side note on Vaughn, he left the film because of the flawed script and because the studio was interfering on the project because they wanted the project rushed.


Watchmen was a good film.  The problem with the film is that it tried so much to stay to the comic that the places where it differed were more than most die hard fans could deal with.  

Constantine was an okay movie but wasn't a Constantine film.  I think had the film been cast properly that the film would've been a LOT better.

[TheMarvell]

You're wrong! X3 was completely not enjoyable, and almost everything about it was bad. Angel's role was pointless, Juggernaut looked so terrible as a throwaway character, that hedgehog guy looked stupid and the fake Psylocke with the "level three mutant" crap was stupid, the Astonishing X-Men 'cure' plot was poorly done and didn't tie in with the other terrible plot in which Phoenix kills Cyclops and Professor X then walks around with Magneto for a while and then Wolverine stabs her. And then there was something about morlochs and stuff. Boo. And I'm not giving spoiler alerts because they didn't alert me that they were spoiling the franchise.

In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, we get to see Wolverine's origins. We also get to see pure awesomeness at the beginning, and Wolverine fight several people. It's actually good fun action. But at the end, Deadpool is turned into a text adventure controlled monster, and Cyclops and "Emma Frost" just show up for no reason and I think Cyclops has his eyes taken out but it turns out not. Why all of a sudden is Cyclops thrust into a movie where he doesn't belong when he's killed off-camera at the beginning of a movie where he does belong?* Accepting X3 as canon in the movie universe degrades the quality of the rest of the movies.




*Yes, I know it was because they were mad at James Marsden for doing Superman Returns (which is better than both those movies and actually really good at what it tried to be), but still a stupid decision

k. First of all, they didn't kill off Cyclops because "they were mad at James Marsden for doing Superman Returns." Marsden chose to do Superman Returns because he felt loyal to Bryan Singer. The only reason why he appeared in X3 at all is because the actor wanted to be in it for the fans. So from a script perspective, the only logical explanation as to why Cyclops, leader of the X-Men, wasn't in the movie and taking part in the important events in the film, is because he's dead (and it's not like he couldn't return in an X4. They never actually showed his death). Anything else would have been a cop out.

Second of all, all of these complaints listed for X3 could easily be applied to the first two films. Angel's role in X3 was just as important/worthless as Nightcrawlers is in X2. Stryker needed to persuade the president to investigate mutants (Nightcrawler) in X2; in X3, Angel's father desperately wanted to cure his son of mutancy. Juggernaut looked stupid? So did Sabertooth. How would you have made him look any better?

The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?

[Talavar]

The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?

No, the legit complaint about X-men 3 isn't that it tried to do too much, but that everything it tried to do it did very badly.  Neither the 'Mutant Cure' storyline nor the 'Dark Phoenix' storyline were handled anything less than terribly.  The movie was rushed by Fox to beat Superman Returns to the box office, and the only director willing to operate under such a tight schedule and deal with Fox's notorious interference was a hack. 

[Tomato]

X3 failed, to me, because the director didn't know what he was doing. X3 pulled so many stories from so many sources... Phoenix (which is enough for like, 2 movies on it's own) The mutant cure, the new brotherhood, Xavier's manipulations, Juggernaut... all these packed into one movie without any real concept of how to do any of them properly. Spiderman 3 had many of the same flaws, but I feel it was marginally superior because at least Raimi knew what he was doing... even if he was being forced to do Venom by FOX.

[TheMarvell]

The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?

No, the legit complaint about X-men 3 isn't that it tried to do too much, but that everything it tried to do it did very badly.  Neither the 'Mutant Cure' storyline nor the 'Dark Phoenix' storyline were handled anything less than terribly.  The movie was rushed by Fox to beat Superman Returns to the box office, and the only director willing to operate under such a tight schedule and deal with Fox's notorious interference was a hack. 

so, the "real" legit complaint, is that you think it's bad? 

X3 failed, to me, because the director didn't know what he was doing. X3 pulled so many stories from so many sources... Phoenix (which is enough for like, 2 movies on it's own) The mutant cure, the new brotherhood, Xavier's manipulations, Juggernaut... all these packed into one movie without any real concept of how to do any of them properly. Spiderman 3 had many of the same flaws, but I feel it was marginally superior because at least Raimi knew what he was doing... even if he was being forced to do Venom by FOX.

This I can understand. Although I liked X3 better since it didn't have any emo "Anchorman" inspired scenes.

[Talavar]

The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?

No, the legit complaint about X-men 3 isn't that it tried to do too much, but that everything it tried to do it did very badly.  Neither the 'Mutant Cure' storyline nor the 'Dark Phoenix' storyline were handled anything less than terribly.  The movie was rushed by Fox to beat Superman Returns to the box office, and the only director willing to operate under such a tight schedule and deal with Fox's notorious interference was a hack. 

so, the "real" legit complaint, is that you think it's bad? 

I don't think it's bad, I know it's bad.  None of it works - the Dark Phoenix storyline is not just terribly adapted, but terrible in general.  Why is Jean evil now?  The movie basically shrugs.  What does she do now that she's evil?  Kill a couple of people randomly, then wander around with Magneto for no good reason.  In the process of making Jean more powerful, she's also apparently become a moron.

Now, how about the Mutant cure storyline?  Again, not just bad because it's poorly adapted from the source material, but poorly done in general.  Most of the main characters are outraged that such a thing as a cure for mutation exists, yet are freely using weaponized versions of it later because it's convenient, with never a moral objection raised.  It's also never really resolved as a plot thread, other than the hint at the end that it's actually only temporary - making the whole thing pointless.

The rush job on X-men 3, Fox's executive interference, and Brett Ratner being a hack are all matters of public record.

Spider-man 3 had too much going on in it.  It's not a good film, but parts of it work, and other parts could have worked if given more time and attention.  X-men 3 could only have worked with a different script and director.

As to Wolverine: Origins, I don't think it's as bad as X-men 3, but it still isn't good.  What sours most people on it especially I think, is that the worst & stupidest parts of the movie come right at the end, and taint whatever positive impression earlier parts of the movie might have been able to make on viewers.

[TheMarvell]

The only legit complaints I see about X3 are that it tries to do to much in too little of time. But it doesn't get the least bit of credit because they killed off certain characters. Wolverine is full of really bad cliches, cheesy lines, and unnecessary twists to it's plot, but that's somehow ok and better than any of X3's flaws?

No, the legit complaint about X-men 3 isn't that it tried to do too much, but that everything it tried to do it did very badly.  Neither the 'Mutant Cure' storyline nor the 'Dark Phoenix' storyline were handled anything less than terribly.  The movie was rushed by Fox to beat Superman Returns to the box office, and the only director willing to operate under such a tight schedule and deal with Fox's notorious interference was a hack. 

so, the "real" legit complaint, is that you think it's bad? 

I don't think it's bad, I know it's bad.  None of it works - the Dark Phoenix storyline is not just terribly adapted, but terrible in general.  Why is Jean evil now?  The movie basically shrugs.  What does she do now that she's evil?  Kill a couple of people randomly, then wander around with Magneto for no good reason.  In the process of making Jean more powerful, she's also apparently become a moron.

Now, how about the Mutant cure storyline?  Again, not just bad because it's poorly adapted from the source material, but poorly done in general.  Most of the main characters are outraged that such a thing as a cure for mutation exists, yet are freely using weaponized versions of it later because it's convenient, with never a moral objection raised.  It's also never really resolved as a plot thread, other than the hint at the end that it's actually only temporary - making the whole thing pointless.

The rush job on X-men 3, Fox's executive interference, and Brett Ratner being a hack are all matters of public record.

Spider-man 3 had too much going on in it.  It's not a good film, but parts of it work, and other parts could have worked if given more time and attention.  X-men 3 could only have worked with a different script and director.

As to Wolverine: Origins, I don't think it's as bad as X-men 3, but it still isn't good.  What sours most people on it especially I think, is that the worst & stupidest parts of the movie come right at the end, and taint whatever positive impression earlier parts of the movie might have been able to make on viewers.

Well, first of all, this is all opinion, so saying things like "I know it's bad" doesn't change that. You think it's bad, and that's the only fact.

What Dark Phoenix does with Magneto and at the end are the only real weak points of the film I see. She has a dual personality in the film, and the evil one is evil because of what Xavier did. Thought the movie explained that pretty well. Now joining Magneto? The film doesn't explain that too well, but given Jean's state of mind, it's not that big of a stretch.

The cure storyline was done a lot better than Phoenix, even if the result was a stalemate. But none of the mutants in the film use the weaponized cure guns until the end of the movie to take out Magneto. So I'm not really sure what you're referencing.

also, why do you keep calling Brett Ratner a hack?

[Talavar]

Well, first of all, this is all opinion, so saying things like "I know it's bad" doesn't change that. You think it's bad, and that's the only fact.

What Dark Phoenix does with Magneto and at the end are the only real weak points of the film I see. She has a dual personality in the film, and the evil one is evil because of what Xavier did. Thought the movie explained that pretty well. Now joining Magneto? The film doesn't explain that too well, but given Jean's state of mind, it's not that big of a stretch.

The cure storyline was done a lot better than Phoenix, even if the result was a stalemate. But none of the mutants in the film use the weaponized cure guns until the end of the movie to take out Magneto. So I'm not really sure what you're referencing.

also, why do you keep calling Brett Ratner a hack?

Why does Jean/Dark Phoenix do anything that she does in the movie?  It's not just a split personality, it's arbitrary.  If anything like this had been hinted at or developed in the first two films, it could maybe be workable.  As it comes out of nowhere, it's inconsistant, plot-driven writing (ie., she just does what is necessary for the plot to happen, not what makes sense for her character).  Plot-driven storytelling of that nature is poor storytelling.

So none of the mutants use the weaponized cure until they do?  I guess that's what I'm referencing. 

I keep calling Brett Ratner a hack because he's never made a good movie, just generic, stylistically-void movies that might as well follow a checklist he's been handed by whatever studio has hired him.  As much as I didn't like Spider-man 3, I respect Sam Raimi.  Raimi actually has a directorial style, and he left Spider-man 4 because he didn't want to do what the studio was going to force him to do.  That is something Ratner would never do.

[BlueBard]

FF wasn't that bad, IMO.  Yes, they took a lot of liberties, especially where Doom is concerned.  But they had some really awesome action scenes and the acting was okay.

FF2 went further astray and I didn't care for that one so much.  It should have been a better retelling of the Galactus story.

See, this is what I don't understand. Why is it ok for FF to take liberties, but not X3?

I didn't say it was okay.  But FF1 didn't really tinker with the characters that badly, except for Doom.  The plot still worked even with those changes.  They managed to cover the origins of FF, they worked in the rivalry between Reed and Victor, and they managed to keep Doom's basic nature intact even though the origin of his powers changed.  He was still armored (sort of), they kept the Doom mask, he still had energy blasts, and he was still an evil, arrogant, power-hungry person convinced of his superiority over everyone else.

As I point out, FF2 went much farther astray from the comics and it was notably less satisfying from a fan-based point of view.  However, I can see why they felt they needed to change Galactus to make him more mysterious and threatening.  The giant dude in the Kirbyesque armor might have seemed silly on film.

I won't go further into my opinion on X3's flaws.  Those are already being debated by others.  Let's just say that I agree with most of the negative reviews.

[lugaru]

Also Fantastic Four could have completely changed the powers but the team interaction would have had me thinking "wow, these guys are a lot like the fantastic four". What I mean is that they got the spirit right... it was more about adventure, family and fun than straight up melodrama. And while I dont think that Jessica works as the traditional Sue Storm, she was still great in the role as her own invisible woman.

[Mr. Hamrick]

I keep calling Brett Ratner a hack because he's never made a good movie, just generic, stylistically-void movies that might as well follow a checklist he's been handed by whatever studio has hired him.  As much as I didn't like Spider-man 3, I respect Sam Raimi.  Raimi actually has a directorial style, and he left Spider-man 4 because he didn't want to do what the studio was going to force him to do.  That is something Ratner would never do.

I will agree with you on Ratner being a hack.  I have always contented that.  I will disagree with you on rather or not he has made a good movie or not.  Red Dragon was a good movie.  A good enough movie that you can easily forget that Ratner directed it.   However, that said, it is not a good movie because of Ratner's directing but because of the acting.  It proves even hacks can get lucky.  By the way, Ratner is not only a hack but a studio hack for the most part.  X3 is proof that he is a studio hack and no all that great one at that.