|
|
Post by Cei-U! on Mar 23, 2017 19:51:38 GMT -5
I thought that this film was the best of all the X films. A few years ago it was on my Classic Christmas 12. Ditto, on both counts. Shax makes some valid, insightful criticisms but I forgive it all for the sake of that opening scene, a dream come true for this Nightcrawler fanatic. Cei-U! I liked his look in Apocalypse better, though! |
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on Mar 23, 2017 20:14:45 GMT -5
I was only kidding. You set yourself up so well with that comment about authenticity that I had to go for it.  Actually, I tend to agree with you that the Raimi films were quite faithful to the original material. Still, I find the webshooters to be an odd choice. From what I've read online, Raimi justified the choice by saying that it was more plausible that he developed organic webshooters, that it was too unbelievable that a kid could develop a wonder adhesive that was more advanced than something 3M could create. He lost me at that point. I mean, of all the things that he deemed to be implausible, that he would focus on the webshooters was rather arbitrary if you ask me. After all, a superhero movie is going to have a multiplicity of implausible things. The Amazing film came up with a perfect solution, IMO. (He stole it from OsCorp.) Seems obvious now... I've always liked that Spider-Man had to invent the web-shooters himself. I think that was a cool way to show how smart the character is. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 23, 2017 20:24:06 GMT -5
I thought that this film was the best of all the X films. Agreed 100%!!! |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 23, 2017 20:33:06 GMT -5
P.S. There's a goof in the scene where Nightcrawler teleports into the cell to rescue the kids; did you see it? I was too busy trying to see which New Mutants I could identify. What did I miss? |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Mar 23, 2017 21:34:34 GMT -5
P.S. There's a goof in the scene where Nightcrawler teleports into the cell to rescue the kids; did you see it? I was too busy trying to see which New Mutants I could identify. What did I miss? You can see him standing in the shadows in the cell before he teleports in. It's a bit surprising they didn't catch that and try to CG it out. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 23, 2017 21:35:32 GMT -5
Shax makes some valid, insightful criticisms but I forgive it all for the sake of that opening scene, a dream come true for this Nightcrawler fanatic. True enough, but if we're going to judge X films solely based upon how awesome their first scenes were, then Last Stand jumps from my least favorite to most favorite X-Men film of all. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Mar 24, 2017 0:36:03 GMT -5
X2 (2003)  Directed by Bryan Singer Produced by Lauren Shuler Donner and Ralph Winter Screenplay by Michael Dougherty, Dan Harris, and David Hayter Story by David Hayter, Bryan Singer, and Zak Penn Box office $407.7 million The best superhero film ever is Spider-Man 2. To my mind, this film in a strong contender for 2nd place, almost tied with maybe 4 other films. Definitely the best film of the franchise, without real contender in my mind. For the basic reason that it recaptures almost everything that made the first film great, and I felt it to be an entirely cohesive and satisfying whole. The action was well-integrated into the plot. Nightcrawler's opening scene would be the gold standard of superhero action until we meet Blink a decade later. Wolverine's battles with Stryker's goons and Deathstrike were both great. The heart of the movie to me lay in the arcs of Iceman and Pyro. Bobby's interactions with his family and Pyro's decision to join with Magneto. I thought it all just worked. The subplots were compelling and danced and flowed together, with the action flowing through them. Nightcrawler represented yet another perfectly cast actor. I thought Stryker made for a fine villain, and his evil plot to kill all mutants provided the appropriate conflict, and by using Cerebro technology, it felt internally consistent within the world as an idea. (My interest in the film was also spotlighted in this years Classic Comics Christmas) |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Mar 24, 2017 0:44:55 GMT -5
- Wolverine's flashbacks to the Weapon X program provide several specific shots that don't at all match what we'll be shown in X-Men Apocalypse. Granted, that film took place in an altered reality, but would that really explain the change in where Wolverine was kept before he escaped or what his reaction was to drawing his claws for the first time? Pity, as they recreated the hallways of Stryker's facility to a T. X-Men Apocalypse didn't show Wolverine getting his metal. And I don't think it was implied that Wolverine was using his claws for the first time in that film. It had him at a point where he already had his claws and was being kept as a prisoner. He then escapes with the help of Jean Grey, a scene that doesn't fit at all in the original timeline (as she would have remembered him, sparing them Xavier's investigations into his past), and thus must be a product of the alternate timeline. So the details of his escape were different in the new timeline. I see no inconsistency there. (The later films are rife with continuity errors; I just don't think this is one of them.) |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 24, 2017 4:53:10 GMT -5
- Wolverine's flashbacks to the Weapon X program provide several specific shots that don't at all match what we'll be shown in X-Men Apocalypse. Granted, that film took place in an altered reality, but would that really explain the change in where Wolverine was kept before he escaped or what his reaction was to drawing his claws for the first time? Pity, as they recreated the hallways of Stryker's facility to a T. X-Men Apocalypse didn't show Wolverine getting his metal. And I don't think it was implied that Wolverine was using his claws for the first time in that film. It had him at a point where he already had his claws and was being kept as a prisoner. No, but both films showed the moment he escaped from the Weapon X program, both segments ending with him escaping through the same door, and both versions clearly establishing this occurred roughly 15 years prior to the first film. In this version, the flashbacks include him looking at his claws for the first time in absolute horror whereas, in Apocalypse, he doesn't give them a second glance. That was my original thinking, but I think it's a stretch to presume the events of Days of Future Past would change this event. You can create all sorts of explanations as to why it could change this, but it just seems more like the product of carelessness. |
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Mar 24, 2017 6:00:37 GMT -5
Oh man, I have to watch X-men Apocalypse.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,201 
|
Post by Confessor on Mar 24, 2017 6:01:24 GMT -5
I liked X2 a lot. It took everything that was good about the first movie and ramped it up considerably, including the superheroics. Like others here, I think the "Nightcrawler in the White House" sequence was fantastic and probably the highlight of the entire movie. That said, the rest of it was strong too and, personally, I liked Stryker as a villain. I have also never felt that the film lost focus half way through.
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 24, 2017 8:12:19 GMT -5
I liked X2 a lot. It took everything that was good about the first movie and ramped it up considerably, including the superheroics. Like others here, I think the "Nightcrawler in the White House" sequence was fantastic and probably the highlight of the entire movie. That said, the rest of it was strong too and, personally, I liked Stryker as a villain. I have also never felt that the film lost focus half way through. Same here. I like Stryker as the villain. He's one guy, a guy with resources, a plan and a personal grudge; thanks to this singularity of purpose the film doesn't need to go into five directions at once. (Even Lady Deathstrike was more of a distraction than anything else, I thought). Like Coke & Comics, I really enjoyed the parallel evolution of Bobby and Pyro. I also greatly enjoyed the small character moments, as when a beer-swigging "professor" Wolverine tells Bobby's parents that he teaches "art". |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,867
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 24, 2017 8:54:41 GMT -5
I'm confused as to what was so likable about Stryker. Beyond delivering a few lines about his wife and his motivation late into the film, he doesn't have a character as far as I can see. He's just a guy who wants to kill mutants. How do you give us Ian McKellan's Magneto in the first film (larger than life in terms of characterization, backstory, and threat) and then give us this guy as a follow-up? What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 24, 2017 12:34:37 GMT -5
I'm confused as to what was so likable about Stryker. Beyond delivering a few lines about his wife and his motivation late into the film, he doesn't have a character as far as I can see. He's just a guy who wants to kill mutants. How do you give us Ian McKellan's Magneto in the first film (larger than life in terms of characterization, backstory, and threat) and then give us this guy as a follow-up? What am I missing? Oh, I agree, Stryker is pretty much a one-note villain; what I enjoy about him is not the complexity of his motivation, but his effectiveness as the heroes' antagonist. He's very much like the shark in Jaws: you know what he's about, he keeps surprising you with the extent of what he can do, and he has a good shot at winning the battle. That he is a normal human also adds an interesting societal aspect to his clash with the X-Men: Charles has been striving for years to prevent a war between mutants and humans, and here there is no choice but to do exactly that. I am reminded of how real-life people like the members of Al-Qaeda or ISIS want a war between Moslems and Kafirs, and how reasonable people want to prevent it... but the extremists often force the issue. If we compare his character to that of Magneto, Stryker loses every time when it comes to depth and personal tragedy. As a bad guy, though, he is no less efficient; the aforementioned shark in Jaws may have less depth, but he was as scary as a psychologically complex Hannibal Lecter. In fact, Stryker wins several points when it comes to effectiveness: his plan was simpler, and he achieved pretty good results with limited means. In terms of storytelling, I also find it more believable when a guy like Stryker loses in the end. He's, after all, just a guy. When a powerful mutant like Apocalypse or Magneto loses, the viewer has to wonder how they managed to drop the ball so badly. (Especially Apocalypse...an Adrian Veidt he was not when it came to planning). |
|
|
|
Post by lobsterjohnson on Mar 24, 2017 21:16:03 GMT -5
I don't think I've ever actually seen The Last Stand.
|
|
Actually, I tend to agree with you that the Raimi films were quite faithful to the original material. Still, I find the webshooters to be an odd choice. From what I've read online, Raimi justified the choice by saying that it was more plausible that he developed organic webshooters, that it was too unbelievable that a kid could develop a wonder adhesive that was more advanced than something 3M could create. He lost me at that point. I mean, of all the things that he deemed to be implausible, that he would focus on the webshooters was rather arbitrary if you ask me. After all, a superhero movie is going to have a multiplicity of implausible things. 
