x-men: the last stand
My friends Craig and David are in town for the weekend, and several of us decided to welcome the guys back by going out to a mall and then to see X-Men: The Last Stand.
Having enjoyed the first two films greatly, I was particularly interested in seeing if this final installment could adequately wrap up the story and yet still thrill me. Yes! Although Last Stand is not my favorite of the three, I think it sufficiently succeeded in pleasing my expectations.
However, I do have some criticisms:
Overall, I felt that there was too much of an emphasis on the conflict scenes (you know, the fights, the explosions, etc.) and too little time spent on character development. I enjoy the characters, I care for the characters, and I wanted to see their lives unfolding. Instead, they were like Magneto's emotionless pawns ... cannon fodder necessary for a war, and that's it.
The wasted time spent on proving that Jean Grey can, yes indeed, blow things to smithereens with her thoughts would have been better spent on an explaination of Angel ... or the child ... or some background on Beast.
Disappointed by the Iceman vs. Pyro duel. Thoroughly enjoyed the Kitty vs. Juggernaut facedown!
And here's a contradiction that bothered me:
Toward the beginning of the story, Professor Xavier is seen teaching an ethics lesson to his students. He tells them that power should not be used for personal gain or for destructive purposes, but instead for the greater good. Then he presents the case of a brain-dead patient for the class's consideration.
However, later on, Wolverine is advising Rogue as she considers whether to get The Cure shot, and he tells her that it doesn't matter what others want but instead just what is good for her personally. We think, "Okay, but Wolverine's a whacko." But at the very end of the film, Wolverine's advice is being echoed by others as sort of the moral of the story ... do what's good for you. And ... oh, just thought of this ... after the credits, we see that Xavier's consciousness has taken residence in the body of an otherwise brain-dead patient ... the very same patient and situation that the original ethics class had been discussing!
Is the switch from the "greater good" doctrine to the "do what's good for you" doctrine something intentional, a part of the story that we're supposed to understand sort of subliminally? Or do you think it's an actual mistake?
I happen to think that Rogue's choice fits both doctrines. Not so sure about Xavier's "ressurrection."
Some would say that there's room for a fourth part, but I think this film wrapped up the story just fine. Anyone with questions about the two or three end-of-film shockers should be directed to their imagination ... that's what imagination is for!
I could barely stomach some of the previews that were shown before the film. Literally! I felt sick and curled up in the fetal position, they were that awful. Why our world be so driven by stuff-stuff-stuff, me-me-me, and greed-greed-greed? It honestly makes me sick. So hopeless.
Having enjoyed the first two films greatly, I was particularly interested in seeing if this final installment could adequately wrap up the story and yet still thrill me. Yes! Although Last Stand is not my favorite of the three, I think it sufficiently succeeded in pleasing my expectations.
However, I do have some criticisms:
Overall, I felt that there was too much of an emphasis on the conflict scenes (you know, the fights, the explosions, etc.) and too little time spent on character development. I enjoy the characters, I care for the characters, and I wanted to see their lives unfolding. Instead, they were like Magneto's emotionless pawns ... cannon fodder necessary for a war, and that's it.
The wasted time spent on proving that Jean Grey can, yes indeed, blow things to smithereens with her thoughts would have been better spent on an explaination of Angel ... or the child ... or some background on Beast.
Disappointed by the Iceman vs. Pyro duel. Thoroughly enjoyed the Kitty vs. Juggernaut facedown!
And here's a contradiction that bothered me:
Toward the beginning of the story, Professor Xavier is seen teaching an ethics lesson to his students. He tells them that power should not be used for personal gain or for destructive purposes, but instead for the greater good. Then he presents the case of a brain-dead patient for the class's consideration.
However, later on, Wolverine is advising Rogue as she considers whether to get The Cure shot, and he tells her that it doesn't matter what others want but instead just what is good for her personally. We think, "Okay, but Wolverine's a whacko." But at the very end of the film, Wolverine's advice is being echoed by others as sort of the moral of the story ... do what's good for you. And ... oh, just thought of this ... after the credits, we see that Xavier's consciousness has taken residence in the body of an otherwise brain-dead patient ... the very same patient and situation that the original ethics class had been discussing!
Is the switch from the "greater good" doctrine to the "do what's good for you" doctrine something intentional, a part of the story that we're supposed to understand sort of subliminally? Or do you think it's an actual mistake?
I happen to think that Rogue's choice fits both doctrines. Not so sure about Xavier's "ressurrection."
Some would say that there's room for a fourth part, but I think this film wrapped up the story just fine. Anyone with questions about the two or three end-of-film shockers should be directed to their imagination ... that's what imagination is for!
I could barely stomach some of the previews that were shown before the film. Literally! I felt sick and curled up in the fetal position, they were that awful. Why our world be so driven by stuff-stuff-stuff, me-me-me, and greed-greed-greed? It honestly makes me sick. So hopeless.