X-Men: Dark Phoenix (June 7, 2019) (1 Viewer)

[Josh Steinberg]

It's kind of amazing they filmed this story twice and mostly failed both times.

Especially when you consider that they let the writer who messed it up the first time write and direct it the second time.

 

[MattBradley]

You guys are making me really want to see this for the first time just to see how bad it is.

 

[Tommy R]

Can I watch it with Tom Servo and Crow?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

It’s more instantly forgettable than bad. For my money, X-Men Apocalypse was worse. That film was longer, slower paced, had too many new characters, and repeated many of the story beats with older characters from the film immediately proceeding it. It was long, boring, muddy and loud, and takes itself dead seriously. It sort of has all of the negative attributes of a Zack Snyder film without any of Snyder’s pluses. It’s possibly the worst film Bryan Singer has directed.

Dark Phoenix is shorter and faster paced, filled with stupid choices and missed opportunities, but it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome long enough to incite terminal boredom. The biggest problem is that it doesn’t really have a point of view or compelling reason to exist. It feels like generic filler.

 

[jayembee]

I had no problem with either Apocalypse or Dark Phoenix. Well, less problem with the former than with the latter.

But, to be honest, Days of Future Past is really the only one of the X-Men films that I think is a step above (excluding the Wolverine and Deadpool sub-series).

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think X2 is probably the pinnacle of the 90s/early 2000s superhero filmmaking - but in hindsight it can be a little disappointing because it sets up plot threads that future sequels ignore and/or do poorly.

X-Men: First Class is also pretty great in my book. My biggest disappointment is that the ending seemed rushed - I would have enjoyed at least one more film set in the 1960s with Charles and Erik still as friends. I think the falling out between the characters and Charles needing the chair were worth more screen time than they got.

I really like Days of Future Past but I think the execution is a bit clunky. I think it was the right time to bring back the old cast, but I was disappointed in the use of the new cast - I think they deserved another film of their own before going high stakes team up.

And it’s especially disappointing that the ending of Days of Future Past erases the disappointing Last Stand and Wolverine Origins from the timeline, but then the DOFP sequels don’t take full advantage of that. That’s not the fault of DOFP but it makes it slightly less compelling for me to revisit.

The biggest problem with the series overall was that it began when the bar was much lower - put the characters onscreen with reasonably convincing effects and costumes and it’s still such a novel concept that it works as well as it needs to. But the MCU’s debut in 2008 and The Avengers specifically in 2012 really changed that landscape - just existing and just “good enough” no longer was enough.

 

[John_Bilbrey]

As a huge fan of the comics, I probably view the films through rose-colored glasses. The originals were bad. The FC series movies are a huge improvement from the originals, but aren't really all that good. Much better, but no Avengers. With that being said, I can't wait for them to get a "real" movie treatment.

 

[Chip_HT]

Apocalypse checked almost all of the boxes for what I wanted to see in an X-Men movie, yet somehow managed to be a let down.

I had lower expectations for Dark Phoenix, mainly because they had already screwed it up the first time, it was a lame duck DOA movie due to the Disney-Fox deal, and I really didn't have faith in the writer/director.

 

[Traveling Matt]

I've always believed a big problem with all the X-Men movies is that they're the X-Men in the movies. Their world is too layered and the storylines too deep and detailed to really work except in episode form, which is why the comics and 90s animated series were so effective. A two-hour movie is obligated to go two hours deep, but that's never enough time with these characters. And then it takes years for the next "episode" to arrive. It's just not an efficient medium for them.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

As a huge fan of the comics, I probably view the films through rose-colored glasses. The originals were bad. The FC series movies are a huge improvement from the originals, but aren't really all that good. Much better, but no Avengers. With that being said, I can't wait for them to get a "real" movie treatment.

Not sure what's not "real" about the series.

I mean, there've been 13 X-Men or related movies - what do you think is going to change and "fix" what you dislike?

 

[Malcolm R]

Not sure what's not "real" about the series.

I mean, there've been 13 X-Men or related movies - what do you think is going to change and "fix" what you dislike?

I think he may be referring to the fact they're now under the Marvel/Disney umbrella rather than Fox. Maybe they'll know how to use the characters better.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think he may be referring to the fact they're now under the Marvel/Disney umbrella rather than Fox. Maybe they'll know how to use the characters better.

Perhaps.

In any case, plenty of those movies were good! It's not like they were duds across the board...

 

[Sam Favate]

Perhaps.

In any case, plenty of those movies were good! It's not like they were duds across the board...

I agree. I'd say the good X-Men films outweighed the bad. Yes, the lows were pretty low (X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Dark Phoenix) but the highs were great (X2, Days of Future Past). I liked the first film, which really started the superhero craze way back in 2000, and First Class in 2011. I'm also partial to The Wolverine, which I think is the best of his solo movies, even better than Logan.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

The 2nd and 3rd Wolverine movies are solid, and both Deadpools are good.

I like "First Class" a lot. Less wild about other "true X-Men" flicks but think most are enjoyable - heck, I even like "Apocalypse"!

 

[jayembee]

Not sure what's not "real" about the series.

I mean, there've been 13 X-Men or related movies - what do you think is going to change and "fix" what you dislike?

If there's anything about the extant X-Films that doesn't seem "real" to me as a fan of the comics from its beginning in the early 60s through sometime in the 80s, it's the mish-mash of characters from various points in the group's history. In the comics, the original group was Cyclops, Marvel Girl, The Beast, Angel, and Iceman. The original movie trilogy had only two of those among the core group, along with two from the "New X-Men" of the 70s. When they moved into doing "The Previous Generation" films, they basically used all of the most popular characters in the original trilogy, so for a film set back in the early 60s, they had to form a group from what mostly amounted to "also-rans".

Now, this isn't really that big a deal. Films are rarely the same as their source material, and tend to just cherry-pick the good/popular bits (and one could just as easily argue that The Avengers should've had Ant-Man and the Wasp rather than Black Widow and Hawkeye). But there's just something about the "re-mix" that does seem not quite "real". I have no problem just dealing with things as they are, but I can understand John's point.

 

[John_Bilbrey]

I think he may be referring to the fact they're now under the Marvel/Disney umbrella rather than Fox. Maybe they'll know how to use the characters better.

This. I have a feeling Marvel will get them the "treatment" they deserve. I guess I should clarify that even though many of the movies are "bad" movies, they are still watchable/enjoyable for me as a fan of the X-Men. Clearly some are better than others as movies go, but as a fan of the source material, I can appreciate them all.

Hopefully, we get a MCU reboot and solid movies.