[Brett_M]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavan

I really missed Singer's mastery of the quiet moments and the character dynamics. Ratner did a great job with the action scenes, but the interpersonal moments were hollow. As others said, there were 2 movie plots squeezed into 1 here. They should have focused on one or the other, or at least expand X3's running time. Lots of missed oppurtunities as we blew through scenes to service the jumbled plot.

Positives: F/X were excellent (Phoenix scenes especially); liked Grammer, Jones, Paige in their roles; Janssen, Romijn, Stewart, and McKellen were excellent; quickly paced; opening scene of Angel as a kid was intense and hit hard; liked the last shot with the chess board.

Negatives: BAD script (this is the main problem); cheap deaths and other comic omages; Angel was a useless character here; some cheesy moments (Pyro vs. Iceman, for example).

This film was rushed into production and felt like it. It wasn't a total loss, and I'll buy it to complete the trilogy, but Fox should have gotten a better script, a better hired gun director, or just wait for Singer.

Overall, a B-. I gave X-Men a B, and X2 a A-.

Exactly. My sentiments exactly. There was enough good stuff to enjoy it but Ratner can't finesse the really good stuff -- the quiet, interpersonal stuff that was so strong in the previous installments.

I liked the pacing (athough the flick needed some time to breathe), the performances, the action and VFX.

10 or 15 minutes could have meant a lot in the final outcome. It doesn't have to be two and a half hours to be good. 110 minutes and it's a different (read: better ) movie.

[nickGreenwood]

My biggest issue with the movie overall was that Brett Ratner and the screenwriting team tried to make the movie far too much like the comic books, going as far as using the X-Men font in the title's, I don't remember the Singer movies doing that.
I think that the best part about Singer's X-Men movies were the fact that they while they were based off from a comic book they weren't comic books. They were dark, they had depth, they had solid screenplays, solid directing. I'm a bit biased I love all of Bryan's work, but it's not hard when he's as good as he is.

There was far too much going on in the film for it to succeed, using characters in place of others and adding in about 5 or 6 other characters when we really only needed the core group was just too much.

One of my friends put it like this: "When both Patrick Stewart and Ian Mckellen fail to be all that compelling you know there are others to blame."
I'm not against Brett Ratner, but he just hasn't done anything to convince me that he's a great director. I mean "Rush Hour 1 & 2" aren't visually stunning films, choreographically yeah they're great, but that credit goes to the choreographer, not Ratner. "Red Dragon" was only saved by Edward Norton.

X3 had some funny bits of dialogue but overall it sounded like the screenwriters were almost trying to be Joss Whedon without ever hitting the mark.

Not a bad flick but it's not great either, it suffered badly from huge expectations.

[Paul_Scott]

Quote:

Not a bad flick but it's not great either, it suffered badly from huge expectations.

Ah...see- Low expectations and a pesimisstic nature pay off, 'cause I enjoyed it quite a bit. I thought Ratner did a fine job considering the position he was put in, and in several ways, I thought he had a much better grasp on certain things than Singer did. And I'm talking about character interpretations, and the juggling of the different personalities/sets of characters, not the action sequences. - for instance, with just a couple missteps and a clunky rallying speech before the big showdown, I felt Wolverine was essayed far better here than in the last film.
Also it seems hard to dispute that this had the best action sequences of the three films, and while the 'character' elements were not as strong as the first (two) films, they didn't need to be , in every case, as many things that were essential have already been established anyway. I still rate the first film higher than either of the follow-ups for that reason (although it took me several viewings to appreciate its strengths)- but given the train wreck I was expecting, this one made a fun afternoon matinee-


and I loved the coda

a solid B

[John Garcia]

Good for a matinee for sure. Basic popcorn movie. I agree with Paul Scott, I didn't have high expectations, so the movie didn't disappoint. Definitely not as good as the first, but still entertaining enought that I didn't feel like I wasted my time. I was not impressed with the mish-mosh of characters even starting with the first movie, and this movie was no different, with many being out of context relative to each other - the characters themselves are presented well, but some of their relationships have been completely discarded from the comics, as has much of the story from the comics. Nonetheless, I enjoyed it.

[Chris Atkins]

X-MEN: THE LAST STAND

8/10

This is a tough review. For every brilliant sequence or story idea in this film, it seemed like there was another missed opportunity or sloppy moment of story telling. But it was an entertaining almost-2 hours, though I fear that in the future we will look back at this film as a missed opportunity.

It's incomprehensible why they would take this script--which could easily have been two 2 hour movies--and condensed it into 105 minutes. There was a lot of story here, and some brilliant choices, but the movie never lets these moments breathe.

[Josh Simpson]

My review is the same as most people on here. It was a fun movie, and a bit better than I expected. However, I felt it was quite rushed, was a bit too cheesy at times, and the script could've used some work. I swear I think there was something blowing up more than not in the whole movie. Like I said, it was fun, but I'll be curious how it holds up on repeat viewings.

[David Williams]

My take on the film seems to be a bit different than most: I thought it rocked and I couldn't tell that there was a different director behind the camera. The movie didn't feel rushed, the character moments were still there for the most part (though Angel & Rogue got the shaft).

The material was pretty successfully transferred to the screen with a minimum of changes. It really felt like a comic book movie for the first time... like the characters were allowed to breathe and really open up their powers. I always felt like Singer dampened their powers to make them seem more realistic. This movie was balls to the wall: All powers, all the time. The most criminal thing TPTB behind this series could do at this point would be stop after they have set up several storylines for a sequel with the ending of this film (Magneto & Rogue's final moments in the movie beg for a sequel). X-Men 4 would be a great chance to bring in the Genosha storyline... it's the next logical step in the evolution of the movie series.

My biggest problem with the movie was "I'm Juggernaut, Bitch!" Other than that, pretty satisfied.

out of or an A-

[BrettGallman]

Saw this for a second time today, and I liked it a lot more. I'm guessing this is because I already knew about all the divergences from the comics, which I really got hung up on the first time I watched it (the same thing happens with pretty much any comic movie with me). I was able to judge it purely on its own merits as a film, and I have to admit that it's more than just a solid movie for me. After my first viewing, I ranked it last of the three films, but now I think I like it better than the first, with X2 being the best. There are still a few weak points, like the way certain characters and subplots seem to be discarded (like Rogue and Angel). This movie could have benefited from being at least thirty minutes longer.

However, some characters are realized perfectly. In particular, Beast is probably the best realized character in all three films. Just perfect casting there. And Magneto really shines in this one as well.

I guess I'd have to give it a solid 4 stars out of 5.

[Dan Keliikoa]

I thought it came off well...I'd score it a 8.5/10.

This movie is sort of a flipside of the same coin; superior action sequences, with slightly weaker 'character' moments (though still good moments) as compared to the first two Singer films. Singer's X-films were the opposite; superior character moments, slightly weaker action sequences (though Nightcrawlers sequence at the top of X2 was a series highlight).

***spoilers included if you still haven't seen movie***



In my view (zips up asbestos suit), this film benefitted from Ratner's better take on action sequences, as this plot was action focused on the 'war' and Jean's abilities. Wolverine's forest sequence was excellent, and the whole Alcatraz thing was handled brilliantly...especially Beast getting to 'work.' I think his character moments were serviceable, if truncated or clunky at times. I was VERY affected and moved by the handling of Xavier's death in particular...that was strong stuff, and had me in a melancholy mood for most of the remainder of the film, which added power to everything that followed. Could Singer have done that better? Yeah, I think so. Does it matter? Not really...Ratner captured that moment in such a way that it delivered a significant wallop to me emotionally; he got the job done. Singer would have probably had me in tears...but Ratner got me REALLY close.

The majestic carnage that Phoenix inflicted on the island was amazing..chilling to witness. I think wolverine should have suffered a bit more when he was approaching her (that looked REALLY painful) but that's not a big thing.

BTW, I honestly don't feel like it was rushed...I never felt that way while watching.

[ThomasC]

X-Men: The Last Stand is a serviceable addition to the X-Men franchise, and probably not as bad as the critics make it out to be (I avoided all reviews before watching the movie, and I have yet to read any since watching it). I thought X-Men was okay and X2 was slightly better but too long. If Singer had directed X3, I don't think it would have been too much better. Ratner was a decent choice, but I would've loved to see it directed by someone who has done great ensemble films like P.T. Anderson (Boogie Nights and Magnolia). I don't think P.T. would ever want to do it, though.

Here are my ratings for all three films:

X1: C+
X2: B-
X3: C+