shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 17, 2017 10:32:11 GMT -5
The X-Men Film Franchise in ReviewFor two decades now, comic book films have dominated the box offices, and yet, with so many of these films churned out to meet audience demand, most of these were driven, at best, by a hodgepodge of producers and, at worst, corporate sensibilities. To the best of my knowledge, only three mainstream comic book film franchises have been overseen and controlled by one consistent director/producer: Sam Rami's Spider-Man, Christopher Nolan's Batman, and the longest-running of the three -- Bryan Singer's X-Men. Bryan Singer is not a favorite director of mine, and this series boasts at least as many flaws as it does assets, but it remains impressive to me that, in 2016, the sixth film in the core series is still working to establish a precise continuity with the first film from sixteen years earlier. That's something worth exploring in depth. While not personally overseen by Singer, I'll also be including the ancillary films set in this universe: X-Men Origins Wolverine, The Wolverine, Deadpool, and Logan. Die hard fans of the series, haters, and luke-warm viewers alike are invited to the discussion! I'm neither a devotee of this series nor an expert -- this is just a franchise that I find uniquely interesting and am thus motivated to re-examine from the beginning. Shortcut to reviews:X-Men (2000)X2 (2003)X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)X-Men: First Class (2011)The Wolverine (2013)X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)Deadpool (2016)X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Mar 17, 2017 10:50:11 GMT -5
I think "precise continuity" is probably pushing it a bit. The timeline laid out in the movies doesn't really make much sense (all of the characters should have aged considerably more than they have done) and we seem to have three entirely separate and contradictory versions of Angel in separate movies...
Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed most of them, but the continuity is a bit of a mess.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 17, 2017 10:51:40 GMT -5
I think "precise continuity" is probably pushing it a bit. The timeline laid out in the movies doesn't really make much sense (all of the characters should have aged considerably more than they have done) and we seem to have three entirely separate and contradictory versions of Angel in separate movies... Emphasis on working to establish a precise continuity. The continuity falters in many many places, but a sincere effort is repeatedly made to work it all out. In that respect, it feels a lot like the source material. |
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on Mar 17, 2017 11:48:16 GMT -5
I look forward to reading your reviews!
|
|
|
|
Post by coinkadink on Mar 17, 2017 11:50:44 GMT -5
I like most of the x-men movies. If I had to pick a few to focus on I'd say X2, First class and DOFP are the best representations. I do like most of the others except Origin. It's a fun series just forget about characters being consistent. It's ok because unless you watch them back to back you don't notice. I wish they could reboot with Marvel but unless they do at least maintain the quality of First class or X2. Apocalpse was a bad one but it had enough moments to make it worth a one time watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by coinkadink on Mar 17, 2017 11:53:38 GMT -5
I think "precise continuity" is probably pushing it a bit. The timeline laid out in the movies doesn't really make much sense (all of the characters should have aged considerably more than they have done) and we seem to have three entirely separate and contradictory versions of Angel in separate movies... Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed most of them, but the continuity is a bit of a mess. Yeah the age thing is confusing, They should never have established a time frame and tied them into historic events. The first ones take place "some time" in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Mar 17, 2017 12:02:24 GMT -5
The franchise has certainly had its ups and downs but there have still been more hits than misses.
The Last Stand, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Apocalypse are the big misses IMO.
I've thoroughly enjoyed every other installment. Particularly X-2 and Logan.
Looking forward to the reviews here
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 17, 2017 12:09:44 GMT -5
X-Men (2000)  Directed by Bryan Singer Produced by Lauren Shuler Donner and Ralph Winter Screenplay by David Hayter Story by Tom DeSanto and Bryan Singer Box Office: $296.3 million It's hard not to have a love/hate relationship with this film. Entering into production in 1999 and hitting theaters in 2000, X-Men was a bold risk in that there hadn't been a successful mainstream comic-to-film superhero adaptation since the Tim Burton Batman films a decade earlier (and let us not speak of the Joel Schumacher follow-ups). Borrowing from the grounded nature of the Burton Batman films (that Batman was essentially a low-grade Iron Man, not doing the crazy acrobatics, martial arts, and cable-swinging, nor donning the high-contrast colors), X-Men not only resists, but openly mocks the trappings of the comic book source material, from code names to colorful skin-tight costumes. And, while that seemed necessary at the time, Sam Rami's Spider-Man, hitting theaters only a year later and directed by an actual fan of the source material, essentially made this film feel outdated, proving that comic book trappings could be brought to life convincingly and without apology. Suddenly, an entire Marvel franchise was beginning to develop, choc full of fanciful comic-like images and stories, and the grounded sub-universe of Singer's X-Men was left looking a bit out of place among them. Still, there's a certain charm to the realism this film tries to lend its superheroes, especially as reflected in a soundtrack that relies on the grounded sound of violins instead of synthesizers to make the action scenes soar. Beyond that, this film suffered from some of the most uneven casting I've ever seen. I don't know if there were two better actors alive to play Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellan). Every scene the two have together utterly shines. And yet, Hallie Berry as Storm almost had to be a producer's call (high profile actor who has no idea what to do with the role), Famke Janssen and James Marsden look the parts of Jean Gray and Scott Summers but deliver very little actual acting, and let us not forget that Hugh Jackman was a last-minute second choice to play Wolverine. The choice of villains is probably the most serious misstep of the series. Singer delivered the hot villains that fans of the late 1990s were clamoring to see (Mystique and Sabretooth), and yet, for the sake of efficiency, the two are relegated to the status of henchmen who, for the sake of screen time, never really exhibit any kind of personality whatsoever. Both come off as a joke as a result, and thus, while the first film tries its best to lay clues that there is unspoken history between Sabretooth and Wolverine that will ultimately come to fruition in later films, we never see Sabretooth again. Mystique is an equally squandered opportunity who in no way resembles her comic book counterpart, but apparently the whole "nude but with scales look" won her enough acclaim with fanboys to warrant her returning for the rest of the series and retroactively get her a pivotal role in the prequels as well. As for the plot, it's the same default template that's been used to introduce the X-Men to new audiences time and again. In the original X-Men #1, we discover the school and team through new recruit Jean Grey, Jean thrown into the thick of it far too quickly when an unexpected attack by Magneto requires the team to go into action. In the original pilot for the first failed X-Men animated series, we discover the school and team through new recruit Kitty Pryde, Kitty thrown into the thick of it far too quickly when an unexpected attack by Magneto requires the team to go into action. In the pilot for the aired X-Men animated series, we discover the school and team through new recruit Jubilee, Jubilee thrown into the thick of it far too quickly when an unexpected attack by sentinels requires the team to go into action. And now, in the X-Men film, we discover the school and team through new recruits Rogue and Logan, both thrown into the thick of it far too quickly when an unexpected attack by Magneto requires the team to go into action. The one significant variation on the pattern here is that both Rogue and Logan are thrown into this strange new world at the same time, and that allows for the misdirection that becomes the charm of this otherwise generic plot -- Magneto was looking for Rogue all along, not Wolverine. Behind that reveal lies an important message about the series: outward toughness is nothing in comparison to innate mutant ability in this world. Rogue is ultimately far more powerful/useful of a mutant than tough-guy Wolverine. Continuity issues: - Xavier states that he first met Magneto when he was 17. X-Men First Class will have them first meet after Xavier completes graduate school, presumably in his mid twenties. - No indication given that Mystique holds any importance to Magneto, Xavier, or any of the X-Men in this film. - Kitty Pryde and Pyro are played by different actors than in the second and third films Adaptation issues - At the time, Mystique's greatest importance in the X-Men comics was her relationship to Rogue. Why then introduce Rogue and Mystique in the same film and utterly avoid that relationship? As Rogue is provided with a stable middle-America family, it's not even left open as a possibility. - Why Toad? Cameo X-Men appearances: - Kitty Pryde - Jubilee - Colossus (according to wikipedia. I did not notice this, myself) Grade: A- (accounting for historical context) B- (for how it's held up in later years) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2017 12:15:38 GMT -5
Off to a good start and I'm curious about what you have to say about them.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 17, 2017 12:19:09 GMT -5
As I intend to watch each film again before reviewing them, the pace of this review thread will be unusually slow (maybe one review per week). Thanks in advance for your patience!
|
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on Mar 17, 2017 12:29:28 GMT -5
Whenever I see the scene where they make fun of the comic book costumes, I always think that the movie costumes are just as goofy looking.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 17, 2017 12:34:37 GMT -5
Whenever I see the scene where they make fun of the comic book costumes, I always think that the movie costumes are just as goofy looking. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 17, 2017 13:25:05 GMT -5
It's difficult talking X-Men movies because you have to take into account so many variables. While it did kind of suck that they weren't in comic book costumes they were all in a "uniform" of sorts which is a nod to the school/class uniform in the beginnings. The cast were all too old of course as Hollywood has a hard time embracing the youthful aspects in casting. This set up the terrible concept of more is better with throwing in any and every possible mutant they could just for copyright purposes and believing fans would be happy to see "ANY" version of a character they love appear on the screen.
As poor as much of the casting was there still greatness. At the time Jackman captured aspects and some of the essence of Wolverine so well and made Wolvie the best part of the movie/series in doing so. Can't imagine the original actor having the same following Hugh developed. So whether it was luck or divine intervention it shows Jackman was meant to portray Logan. All of the others in the team are pretty much miscast and given little characterization to work with. Singer made sure to use and emphasize the big name talent he paid for. The movie really was all smoke and mirrors and explosions trying to utilize action in place of or hiding poor writing and a mess of a movie with lots of concepts and little focus.
And yet everyone i knew was excited and hopeful after seeing this 1st adventure. As long as you could separate comic from Hollywood and accept the movie for what it was then it wasn't as terrible as it could have been.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 17, 2017 16:17:30 GMT -5
It's difficult talking X-Men movies because you have to take into account so many variables. While it did kind of suck that they weren't in comic book costumes they were all in a "uniform" of sorts which is a nod to the school/class uniform in the beginnings. The cast were all too old of course as Hollywood has a hard time embracing the youthful aspects in casting. This set up the terrible concept of more is better with throwing in any and every possible mutant they could just for copyright purposes and believing fans would be happy to see "ANY" version of a character they love appear on the screen. I'm not sure one had any correlation on the other. You have to keep in mind how different the market was back then for films like this. There was no guarantee this film would be a financial success, and certainly no guarantee there'd be a second and third in the series, let alone the wide breadth of comic book films that exist today. So the very idea that some of the less mainstream X-Men characters might appear on film for a brief moment -- that was damn exciting back then, regardless of how strong or weak the main cast was. We don't flinch now when it happens because every hero and their uncle is being optioned for a film, but it was a precious thing back then. I still remember nearly peeing my pants when Colossus appeared in X-2. |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Mar 17, 2017 16:26:14 GMT -5
It's difficult talking X-Men movies because you have to take into account so many variables. While it did kind of suck that they weren't in comic book costumes they were all in a "uniform" of sorts which is a nod to the school/class uniform in the beginnings. The cast were all too old of course as Hollywood has a hard time embracing the youthful aspects in casting. This set up the terrible concept of more is better with throwing in any and every possible mutant they could just for copyright purposes and believing fans would be happy to see "ANY" version of a character they love appear on the screen. I'm not sure one had any correlation on the other. You have to keep in mind how different the market was back then for films like this. There was no guarantee this film would be a financial success, and certainly no guarantee there'd be a second and third in the series, let alone the wide breadth of comic book films that exist today. So the very idea that some of the less mainstream X-Men characters might appear on film for a brief moment -- that was damn exciting back then, regardless of how strong or weak the main cast was. We don't flinch now when it happens because every hero and their uncle is being optioned for a film, but it was a precious thing back then. I still remember nearly peeing my pants when Colossus appeared in X-2. Not as precious when they only got 2 or3 minutes on screen of hardly recognizable as the character you loved. There was the hope of something wonderful like a great tasting steak and we got a hot dog instead. Very unfulfilling and less satisfying as Fox/Hollywood thinks we can be appeased with a boring mediocre moment than a full blown realization. Take those 5 minutes and let Cyclops be developed or allow Sabretooth being fleshed out into a true threat rather than coming across lamely. Such hopes and we get so little. And since X-Men most of the superhero movies have followed this route of trying to put too much into the movie and not delivering enough to satisfy thinking they are pleasing the fans when they are not and only confusing those who don't follow comics. |
|
