Timewaster's Guide Archive

Bryan Singer did not ABANDON " X Men." He merely signed on to direct "Superman." It was his plan to make "X3" his next movie, but Fox and especially MArvel threw a coniption, fasttracked the project, and then they hired Ratner (which hardly seems like a coincidence. Why would you just happen to pick the guy that just got fired from the same A-list franchise that your first choice just left to do? Because you want to stick it to your first choice, that's why. Considering how awful the buzz was on at the time concerning Ratner, and how upset people were at the idea of him directing "Superman" (which he was fired from shortly before Singer signed on), I have come to the conclusion that Marvel chose Ratner to make the statement that Singer was not a hot property, but that X MEN was the hot property, and that they could make it successful even with a director that no one had any enthusiasm about.

Marvel brought the comic book movie back from the dead by beign savvy enough to hire interesting directors such as Singer, Sam Raimi and even Ang Lee to make their movies more than just schlock. I think that Lee's "Hulk," a film which I happen to love, and which got mostly favorable reviews, scared them away from lettign directors have control of their properties, and as such, they have gone in the other direction, hiring hacks who aren't burdened with issues like "atristic vision," who are willing to just do exactly what they tell them to. That, combined with their obsessive need to have a new Marvel movie out every six months or so, is going to kill the genre every bit as much as the increasingly bad "Batman" films and all of their imitators did in the '90's.

The only thing that can save the future of comic book movies at this point is the fact that "Superman" and "Batman" are still in such good hands, with Singer and Chris Nolan.

Now, if we can just ensure that no one EVER casts Halle Berry in one of these again (or if they do, that they keep her on a short leash), than there might still be a chance. At least Marvel still has "Siper-Man 3," but I live in fear of what they will do to the franchise when Raimi and company movie on and they start making them with a new director and new actors.

The correct answer, of course, is who cares? As long as most of them are wiped from continuity.

Particularly Dan Brown.

Okay, someone explain Gambit to me . Everyone also says they want to see him in the movie, but as far as I can tell by my miniscule knowledge, his power is that he carries a stick (which, admittedly, makes him the one the play in the arcade game, the same reason Donatello is the best Ninja Turtle - weapon with the furthest reach.).

I like Cyclops, I will always like Cyclops.  

reference: http://www.timewastersguide.com/view.php?id=1407

I just wnat to point out that it's impossible to not under-utilize Cyclops. He's a chump character from the get go with an uninteresting power or personality.

Yeah, you're only saying that because he attacks your beliefs as a person with two eyes, reflecting the bias of everyone on this site.

I don't think it's impossible to not-underuse him - there characters in these movies are whatever the choose them to be (look at Rogue. She's totally different from in the comics.). Cyclops are Marsden are both likable - the franchise just never lets them do enough. The dynamic between Cyclops and Wolverine has always been a godd one, and they have a chance to really build on that in this one, but unfortuantely they dont.

Just my opinion, of course.

The reference to "Cockamamie" theology was not about the study of religious symbols, but merely a joke about the specious reasoning and "according to the conclusions I've jumped to" leaps in logic that bog down the film so utterly.

As far as the question of being offended, the person who wrote that didn't read the review: we never said that. And we were not in a hole - we new exactly what the story was about, there were no surprises going in, except that we thoguht there would be at least an attempt at a logical presentation of the theories. I wanted to see interesting and solid reasoning behind them, and there wasn't any.

The point that it is just a novel, and a movie, is well founded - people are trying to make into something of religious significance, and no matter how you look at it, it's just not. It's pulp fiction.

But the fact remains (in my opinion, of course) that it was shoddy pulp fiction.

As for the other films that got better reviews, "Saw" notwhithstanding, some of those were great films. "Collateral" was an extremely well made thriler that was ACTUALLY THRILLING.

The number one criteria on which a critic should base the review is whether the film succeeds at what it is trying to be. "The Da VInci Code" did not come close, at any point, to succeeding as a thriller, because it was painfully dull and you did not care if a single character in it lived or died. That has nothing to do offending Christians - it has to do with alienating people whol pay to see a movie starring Tom Hanks and Directed by Ron Howard and something either entertaining or thoughtful, and instead get something plodding, bloated and unbelievable lazy. It has nothing whatsover to do with the subject matter - that's exactly the kind of willd, unsupported reasoning the character's use, which is why the stroy is so insipid. "Collateral" and yes, even "Hulk" (which may not have connected with audiences, but was appreciated by critics) got much, much better reviews all across the country than "Da Vinci Code" did - from critics of all religious beliefs.

Wow, this took in 77 million over the weekend, and it had the largest overseas opening of any movie.

I don't know about the overseas opening - I know it is the second highest world wide opening ever (right behind "Revenge of The Sith"), but that really doesn't mean as much as it sounds like it does. Very few blockbusters are released in domestic and foreign markets simultaneously - the movie only ranked as 13th biggest opening in the U.S.

I really like the ending of Flying Daggers, though I am increasingly aware that I'm one of the only people in the world who does.

I also like Iron Monkey; it's actually on my "to buy" list, which isn't very large. It's so far removed from the others we're discussing as to be in a different genre, but I thought it was fun.

I, too,  love "House of Flying Daggers," but I have to admit certain faults. I actually enjoyed it more than "Hero."

And I have to agree that "Iron Monkey" is really not the same genre, but it was merketed as such, and therefore I felt it worth mentioning, plus I wanted the excuse to talk about how much I HATED HATED HATED HATED HATED IT!!!

Actually, you hit on part on why I hated it so much -  I went expected something more in the genre we are talking about. Even then, when I realized that it was more of "Zorro" or Super Hero type of thing, I tried to go with it, but the writing and acting were just beyond awful, and it was not well directed at all.

"The Promise" in some ways is a different genre as well, but they are all marketed the same in America.

And an opinion I respect.  I'm just wondering if we saw the same movie.  Iron Monkey 2 was AWFUL.  Any chance you saw that one instead of the first?

No, it was the first one, the one that was released theatrically in the U.S. in the fall of 2001.