Film of the Year (so far)
Ok, it's been quite a while since I posted, so I thought I'd update you (dear read(s)) of my favourite films of the year... though it's worth noting that this hasn't been teh greatest year for movies!
In rough order that I saw them
King Kong:
Ok, I'll concede that the effects were nice, Kong had a lot of personality (more than most of the ships crew) and....um... nope, run out of nice things to say! My biggest problem with the film, was the lack of tension. When you're remaking a film as iconic as Kong, it's impossible to stray from the original story much, hence... you know what's going to happen! Ok, you don't know which of the crew are going to survive, but to be honest, you don't really care. This updated version didn't really add much to the original and so, was kinda pointless. Speaking of pointless, the middle of the film, with the escape from Skull Island, was rubbish! Why didn't Jack Black just bring back some of the scary arse bugs? Would been a lot less hassle! Also, how the **** did they get King on board the ship? All in all, an unsatisfying film, made all the more disappointing by being Peter Jacksons follow up to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Chris Rating 4/10
The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe:
Sadly, I found this film tedious and dull. This was mostly down to the kiddie cast whom I hated... I wanted to see them die.. painfully. The story was predictable (even for a heathen like me who has never read any of the books) and the action in the film was uninspiring to say the least. Never has a climatic battle been so BORING!! Don't these people realise we've seen Lord of the Rings? It's the standard for epic battles and this was SO woefully short of that standard (not helped by the fact that they obviously had a 'no blood, no gore' clause!) As a result, there was no tension and little excitement. Tilda Swanson gets bonus points for being a creepy Witch and the guy who played Tumnus was cool (sorry, briefly forgot his name, but he's an actor to watch out for) but the rest of the film was tedious shite. p.s. the kids must die
Chris Rating: 2/10
Match Point:
This year did NOT start well for me! Kevin and I thought we'd get some cult-cha in our lives and went to see Woddy Allen's latest (and apparantly most accesable) film... what a bag o'shite! Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was the most wooden arsehole to be on a screen since muffin the mule (no, I'm NOT old enough to remember - quite!) The story revolved around...... (sorry, I'm trying to muster the willpower to give a shit).... JRM's characters attempt to pull a wealthy bird, whilst shagging some slightly mental yank. It's dull.... VERY dull... then it takes a ridiculous twist and becomes.... well, more dull. At one point, the Police are involved (sadly, not to arrest Woody for making shit films) and the films stops being dull for a little bit, to be ridiculous instead... has Woody Allen never SEEN any Police drama?!? FFS, the Bill is more realistic!Then, thankfully, the films ends and you realise you've wasted a couple of hours of your life on a piece of crap where very little happened. If there is ANY saving point to be made from this film, it's Scarlett Johannsen, who's actually VERY good in it (all the more impressive given the shit material.)
Chris Rating: 1/10 (For Scarlet Johnnsen only)
Tristram Shandy - A Cock and Bull Story:
At last, a little bit of humour at the cinema! Again, I can't tell you much about what the film was about, because I'm still trying to work it out! It's from a book that people said could never be put on the big (or small) screen and I can kinda see why! In truth, very little happens, but it's fun to see the way the characters interact. The film itself is sort of about a agroup of actors and actresses, trying to make a film of the book... confused? You will be! In truth, very little of this film has stuck in my mind, aside from a hilarious scene invcolving a hot chestnut and the birth of Tristram. This film is worth seeing form those aloneand in truth, it's quite a pleasant little film.
Chris Rating: 6.5/10
Syrianna:
Ok, this is a deep film about shady governments creating instability in the middle east to protect their oil interests... or something.... In truth, I found it pretty dull. Sure, tehj subject matter is important, but I'd rather watch it as a documentary. Matt Damon is wasted in it as...er... some bloke... who...er.. does something... (To be honest, most of the time he was on screen, I was whispering 'MATT DAMON!!' to Kevin, in a manner akin to Team America!) There's some sub plot (or perhaps it was the main plot) about MATT DAMON! 's kid and the guy who was Dr Bashir from DS9. The big finale is, quite frankly, ridiculous.. and leaves you wondering why they needed to invade Iraq, if they could just send a missle to get Saddam (controlled by a little joystick - I kid you not)! One of the least entertaining films I've ever seen. Ok, perhaps I should display some kind of social conscience, but I go to the cinema to have fum.. and this was as far removed from fun as you get!
Chris rating 1.5/10
Date Movie:
Ok, ok, I take responsibility for seeing this sack of shit, but it's got Alysson Hannigan in it, how bad could it be?!? Ok, the ansqwer to that question is 'very fucking bad'! Imagine Scary Movie, but with worse (and fewer) jokes! To be honest, I can't remember much about it, other than Hannigan was truly awful (I've now seen her in the 'sitcom' How I met your mother and am wondering if Buffy was a fluke and she's actually a terrible actress!) I quite liked the guy who played the 'Hitch' character, even if I spent part of the film, wondering what I'd seen him in before (it was Bad Santa - he was the elf). Umm.. I've nothing else to say other than 'move along'.
Chris Rating: 2/10
Underworld - Evolution:
I have to admit that I found the first Underworld to be a bit of a guilty pleasure. Sure it was dumb, redictable, the action wasn't THAT great and the dialogue truly awful.... but.. KATE BECKINSALE IN RUBBER!!! WITH BIG GUNS!!! AND a kickin soundtrack! Naturally, I was looking forward to the sequal and it didn't let me down! It was dumber (who the fuck brings a corpse on a raid!?!), it was more predictable (hmm.. the corpse stirs), the action STILL wasn't that great (though the 'copter was cool) and dialogue was worse! Guess what.. yep, I quite liked it! (mm... Kate in rubber with big guns and a kickin soundtrack..) To be honest, you just have to look up to realise there a\re worse ways to spend a few hours and having sat through the aforementioned films, this came across like something special!
Chris Rating: 6/10 (I'm feeling generous now - must be the rubber)
V For Vendetta:
At last, a truly worthy film! To be honest, my opinion of this film has not even been affected by the dross I'd sat through previously. This film is epic, it works on so many levels that I struggle to figure out where to start singing it's praises! The plot revolves around a character known only as 'V', who is striking against the corrupt government, to gain revenge for a terrible secret in his past (I'm being woolly on prurpose in case you haven't seen it). On his travels, he saves a lass named Evey, played by Natalie Portman (more on her in a little while.) One of the biggest differences between 'V' and other on screen heros, is that he's really quite intellegent and a lot more talkative than your usual hero-type. The dialogue he comes out with is captivating and delivered perfectly by Hugo Weaving (of Matrix and LotR fame). The rest of teh supporting cast are also excellent, with Stephen Rea's detective standing out. But the best performance of teh film is from Natalie Portman. She's incredible as Evey, this is her best performance since Leon (aka the Professional). Here, she shows George Lucas what she can do, if only he'd have given her the opportunity! The final scenes of the film are very moving and stay with you long after the film is done. Some people have criticised it, saying it glorifies and even shows justification for terrorism, which I suppose it does... personally, I think it just blurs the line between terrorism and rebellion...
Chris Rating: 10/10 I'm not expecting to see a better film this year
Inside Man:
I'm not really a Spike Lee fan, but the premise of this film and the clever trailer left me curious. This is a film about a bank heist that goes wrong... or does it. There develops an interesting relationship between the 'bad guys' (led by a wooden as ever Clive Owen) who are pitted against the Cops, led by an impressivce (as ever) Denzel Washington (supported by a sadly underused Chewitel Ejifdor (sp)). Hampering both, is the shady Jodie Foster, who represents the banks owner. The film is shot in 'flash forwards', when the cops try and figure out who the bad guys were and who was a hostage - this part of the film works very well. In this thriller, nothing is ever quite what it seems and the film is quite gripping, although the final twists are sadly a little predictable (in a Jonathan Creek kind of way.) To be honest, not even the Wooden man can ruin this film, though I think it's a shame that they couldn't find anyone with some charaism to play the main baddie.
Chris Rating 7/10
Ice age - The Meltodown
Ok, I admit that the original film was another guilty pleasure of mine, I loved it! Sadly, the sequal doesn't quite live up to the first one (as is often the case), that said, it's still quite an enjoyable little romp. There are some new characters this time (including Queen Latifah, who plays another Mammoth, who thinks she's a possum) and her possum brothers, who get all the best laughs. Sid the Sloth has some nice laughs too and Manny holds the whole thing together. Sadly, this leaves little room for the Sabretooth tiger, my favourite character in the first film and Dennis Leary really doesn't have much to go on. His character seems to have lost most of his venom and his slightly malevolent streak, which is a shame.
Chris Rating: 6.5/10
Slither:
Ok, I really don't like horror films. I just don't find them entertaining at all! I find the use of gore, just for the sake of it unpleasant and generally, horror films get most of their 'scares' by playing some quiet music and then having something big and loud jumping out on you. To me, that's not scary, it's just annoying. The only reason I went to see this, was because the great Nathan Fillion is in it. As most of you are aware, I think he's a right laugh and would probably go to see him open a supermarket, let alone a film! Sure enough, he's great in this film too, though the best performance is arguably from the guy who plays the mayor, who gets all the best lines. This film is a pretty typical horror film. Alien creatures fall from teh sky near some redneck town adn one of the towns prominentcitizens stumbles across them and is 'infected'. Soon, he starts spreading this infection around the town, causing the inhabitants to act a bit like zombies. Nathan plays theSheriff, who must return everything to normal, whilst also winning the heart of the wife of the first guy to get infected. It's not a smart film, but there are some great moments (including one with a hand grenade) and some funny jokes.
Chris Rating: 7/10
Mission Impossible 3:
Personally, I loved the first MI film and loathed the second. It just wasn't an MI film! There was way too much gunplay and not enough 'Missions' for me! When I heard JJ Abrams (Thje guy behind Alias and Lost) was directing this, my expectations began to rise and on the whole, I wasn't disappointed. To me, there is still too much gunplay and the opening acttion sequence is a little OTT and lacks the subtlety of the IMF. Tom Cruise (and actor whose work I generally like) is pleasant enough in this, without ever really stretching himself, but the supporting cast is pretty good (hell, even Jonathan Rhys Meyers doesn't utterly suck). The ace though is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays the bad guy (tm) and puts in a superbly evil performance. There is a scene in the Vatican which is pretty good, one on a bridge which is exciting and another set piece set in teh skyscrapers of um... Tokyo? that was pretty exciting, but sadly the final scene is a little flat. In conclusion, better than number 2 (by miles), but still not as good as the first film.
Chris rating: 7/10
The da Vinci Code:
I loved the book! I loved most of the casting for this film (Jean Reno and Sir Ian McKellen in particular), but I wasn't quite sold on the prospect of Tom Hanks in the lead role. Sadly, this film turned out to be a bit of a disappointment for me. It's hard to say what's gone wrong with it, but I think it was perhaps down to a lack of chemsitry between...well... ANYONE! There should have been a competitive spark beween Hanks and Reno (but there wasn't and Jean Reno was sadly underused). There should have been one between Bettany and Molina (though Bettany WAS superb). There really wasn't any chemistry in the film. As a result, there is little tension (in fact the last 30 minutes are so tension free, they border being outright dull). Hanks must take the blame for this, the character is supposed to be a little shy, but Hanks just played him without emotion or expression, there was none of the original characters passion. Sharing the blame must be Ron Howard, who managed to turn an exciting book into a bit of a dull film.
Chris Rating: 5.5/10
X-Men - The Last Stand:
This is the review that will get me beaten up! I admit that I feared for this film when the director of the first two films went to do Superman. The anxiety grew when they skipped through directors, ending up with the guy who did the Rush Hour films... don't get me wrong, they're a laugh, but that's not what I wanted form the X films. It got worse, when it transpired that they were writing this film by committee and were going to rush it out, so that it hit the cinemas before Superman. Alarm bells REALLY started ringing, when spoilers were leaked, suggesting several key characters would be killed off... So it was with some trepidation that I went to see it... and my fears were realised. The first two films were about characters and relationships. You got to know the characters, got to feel for them and symnpathise with them.There were conflicts, but often the line between good and bad was blurred... This films just shat all over that. Characterisation? BAH! Lets just blow shit up, must have been the motto of the team of writers (who probably haven't ever read any X Men stuff.) To make matters worse, they took one of the finest comics ever and fucked it up! The story of Pheonix was immense, it's a tragedy on an epic scale and the story of Scott and Jean and the decisions that had to be made. Courtesy of the writers, this element was removed early on (and utterly wasted and devoid of impact.) So Wolverine has to tkae the Scott role... which would be fine if they hadn't de-clawed him. Yep, Wolvie has lost his beserker side and no longer seems to give a shit about his past... The Pheonix story is more messed up by the fact that Jean just stands around for most of the film (bar one shocking scene). What a waste! I have a suspicion that the proper Pheonix effect was too expensive for them to film in a short time, so that was ditched too. Ok, Sir Ian manages to add some weight to the proceedings and his scene with the non-mutant Mystique is brutal (Lets not even start on a simple injection that will alter your DNA!), but most of the rest of the bad guys are just nameless grunts and cannon fooder, so you don't give a shit what happens to them. And there's the biggest problem... you don;t care... character die left right and centre and you don't give a shit. This film was SO wasteful and disappojnting, that the scoire I'm gonna give it is going down as I type!
Am I just ranting because I'm a rabid fanboy, who doesn't want to see anything change form the comics? No, the first 2 films deviated a lot, but that was cool, I loved those films! I'm ranting because I invested in these characters and some Fox dipshit exec screwed that investment up.
Chris Rating 4/10
Ok, that's all folks... let me know what you think and if I've missed any films!
In rough order that I saw them
King Kong:
Ok, I'll concede that the effects were nice, Kong had a lot of personality (more than most of the ships crew) and....um... nope, run out of nice things to say! My biggest problem with the film, was the lack of tension. When you're remaking a film as iconic as Kong, it's impossible to stray from the original story much, hence... you know what's going to happen! Ok, you don't know which of the crew are going to survive, but to be honest, you don't really care. This updated version didn't really add much to the original and so, was kinda pointless. Speaking of pointless, the middle of the film, with the escape from Skull Island, was rubbish! Why didn't Jack Black just bring back some of the scary arse bugs? Would been a lot less hassle! Also, how the **** did they get King on board the ship? All in all, an unsatisfying film, made all the more disappointing by being Peter Jacksons follow up to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Chris Rating 4/10
The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe:
Sadly, I found this film tedious and dull. This was mostly down to the kiddie cast whom I hated... I wanted to see them die.. painfully. The story was predictable (even for a heathen like me who has never read any of the books) and the action in the film was uninspiring to say the least. Never has a climatic battle been so BORING!! Don't these people realise we've seen Lord of the Rings? It's the standard for epic battles and this was SO woefully short of that standard (not helped by the fact that they obviously had a 'no blood, no gore' clause!) As a result, there was no tension and little excitement. Tilda Swanson gets bonus points for being a creepy Witch and the guy who played Tumnus was cool (sorry, briefly forgot his name, but he's an actor to watch out for) but the rest of the film was tedious shite. p.s. the kids must die
Chris Rating: 2/10
Match Point:
This year did NOT start well for me! Kevin and I thought we'd get some cult-cha in our lives and went to see Woddy Allen's latest (and apparantly most accesable) film... what a bag o'shite! Jonathan Rhys-Meyers was the most wooden arsehole to be on a screen since muffin the mule (no, I'm NOT old enough to remember - quite!) The story revolved around...... (sorry, I'm trying to muster the willpower to give a shit).... JRM's characters attempt to pull a wealthy bird, whilst shagging some slightly mental yank. It's dull.... VERY dull... then it takes a ridiculous twist and becomes.... well, more dull. At one point, the Police are involved (sadly, not to arrest Woody for making shit films) and the films stops being dull for a little bit, to be ridiculous instead... has Woody Allen never SEEN any Police drama?!? FFS, the Bill is more realistic!Then, thankfully, the films ends and you realise you've wasted a couple of hours of your life on a piece of crap where very little happened. If there is ANY saving point to be made from this film, it's Scarlett Johannsen, who's actually VERY good in it (all the more impressive given the shit material.)
Chris Rating: 1/10 (For Scarlet Johnnsen only)
Tristram Shandy - A Cock and Bull Story:
At last, a little bit of humour at the cinema! Again, I can't tell you much about what the film was about, because I'm still trying to work it out! It's from a book that people said could never be put on the big (or small) screen and I can kinda see why! In truth, very little happens, but it's fun to see the way the characters interact. The film itself is sort of about a agroup of actors and actresses, trying to make a film of the book... confused? You will be! In truth, very little of this film has stuck in my mind, aside from a hilarious scene invcolving a hot chestnut and the birth of Tristram. This film is worth seeing form those aloneand in truth, it's quite a pleasant little film.
Chris Rating: 6.5/10
Syrianna:
Ok, this is a deep film about shady governments creating instability in the middle east to protect their oil interests... or something.... In truth, I found it pretty dull. Sure, tehj subject matter is important, but I'd rather watch it as a documentary. Matt Damon is wasted in it as...er... some bloke... who...er.. does something... (To be honest, most of the time he was on screen, I was whispering 'MATT DAMON!!' to Kevin, in a manner akin to Team America!) There's some sub plot (or perhaps it was the main plot) about MATT DAMON! 's kid and the guy who was Dr Bashir from DS9. The big finale is, quite frankly, ridiculous.. and leaves you wondering why they needed to invade Iraq, if they could just send a missle to get Saddam (controlled by a little joystick - I kid you not)! One of the least entertaining films I've ever seen. Ok, perhaps I should display some kind of social conscience, but I go to the cinema to have fum.. and this was as far removed from fun as you get!
Chris rating 1.5/10
Date Movie:
Ok, ok, I take responsibility for seeing this sack of shit, but it's got Alysson Hannigan in it, how bad could it be?!? Ok, the ansqwer to that question is 'very fucking bad'! Imagine Scary Movie, but with worse (and fewer) jokes! To be honest, I can't remember much about it, other than Hannigan was truly awful (I've now seen her in the 'sitcom' How I met your mother and am wondering if Buffy was a fluke and she's actually a terrible actress!) I quite liked the guy who played the 'Hitch' character, even if I spent part of the film, wondering what I'd seen him in before (it was Bad Santa - he was the elf). Umm.. I've nothing else to say other than 'move along'.
Chris Rating: 2/10
Underworld - Evolution:
I have to admit that I found the first Underworld to be a bit of a guilty pleasure. Sure it was dumb, redictable, the action wasn't THAT great and the dialogue truly awful.... but.. KATE BECKINSALE IN RUBBER!!! WITH BIG GUNS!!! AND a kickin soundtrack! Naturally, I was looking forward to the sequal and it didn't let me down! It was dumber (who the fuck brings a corpse on a raid!?!), it was more predictable (hmm.. the corpse stirs), the action STILL wasn't that great (though the 'copter was cool) and dialogue was worse! Guess what.. yep, I quite liked it! (mm... Kate in rubber with big guns and a kickin soundtrack..) To be honest, you just have to look up to realise there a\re worse ways to spend a few hours and having sat through the aforementioned films, this came across like something special!
Chris Rating: 6/10 (I'm feeling generous now - must be the rubber)
V For Vendetta:
At last, a truly worthy film! To be honest, my opinion of this film has not even been affected by the dross I'd sat through previously. This film is epic, it works on so many levels that I struggle to figure out where to start singing it's praises! The plot revolves around a character known only as 'V', who is striking against the corrupt government, to gain revenge for a terrible secret in his past (I'm being woolly on prurpose in case you haven't seen it). On his travels, he saves a lass named Evey, played by Natalie Portman (more on her in a little while.) One of the biggest differences between 'V' and other on screen heros, is that he's really quite intellegent and a lot more talkative than your usual hero-type. The dialogue he comes out with is captivating and delivered perfectly by Hugo Weaving (of Matrix and LotR fame). The rest of teh supporting cast are also excellent, with Stephen Rea's detective standing out. But the best performance of teh film is from Natalie Portman. She's incredible as Evey, this is her best performance since Leon (aka the Professional). Here, she shows George Lucas what she can do, if only he'd have given her the opportunity! The final scenes of the film are very moving and stay with you long after the film is done. Some people have criticised it, saying it glorifies and even shows justification for terrorism, which I suppose it does... personally, I think it just blurs the line between terrorism and rebellion...
Chris Rating: 10/10 I'm not expecting to see a better film this year
Inside Man:
I'm not really a Spike Lee fan, but the premise of this film and the clever trailer left me curious. This is a film about a bank heist that goes wrong... or does it. There develops an interesting relationship between the 'bad guys' (led by a wooden as ever Clive Owen) who are pitted against the Cops, led by an impressivce (as ever) Denzel Washington (supported by a sadly underused Chewitel Ejifdor (sp)). Hampering both, is the shady Jodie Foster, who represents the banks owner. The film is shot in 'flash forwards', when the cops try and figure out who the bad guys were and who was a hostage - this part of the film works very well. In this thriller, nothing is ever quite what it seems and the film is quite gripping, although the final twists are sadly a little predictable (in a Jonathan Creek kind of way.) To be honest, not even the Wooden man can ruin this film, though I think it's a shame that they couldn't find anyone with some charaism to play the main baddie.
Chris Rating 7/10
Ice age - The Meltodown
Ok, I admit that the original film was another guilty pleasure of mine, I loved it! Sadly, the sequal doesn't quite live up to the first one (as is often the case), that said, it's still quite an enjoyable little romp. There are some new characters this time (including Queen Latifah, who plays another Mammoth, who thinks she's a possum) and her possum brothers, who get all the best laughs. Sid the Sloth has some nice laughs too and Manny holds the whole thing together. Sadly, this leaves little room for the Sabretooth tiger, my favourite character in the first film and Dennis Leary really doesn't have much to go on. His character seems to have lost most of his venom and his slightly malevolent streak, which is a shame.
Chris Rating: 6.5/10
Slither:
Ok, I really don't like horror films. I just don't find them entertaining at all! I find the use of gore, just for the sake of it unpleasant and generally, horror films get most of their 'scares' by playing some quiet music and then having something big and loud jumping out on you. To me, that's not scary, it's just annoying. The only reason I went to see this, was because the great Nathan Fillion is in it. As most of you are aware, I think he's a right laugh and would probably go to see him open a supermarket, let alone a film! Sure enough, he's great in this film too, though the best performance is arguably from the guy who plays the mayor, who gets all the best lines. This film is a pretty typical horror film. Alien creatures fall from teh sky near some redneck town adn one of the towns prominentcitizens stumbles across them and is 'infected'. Soon, he starts spreading this infection around the town, causing the inhabitants to act a bit like zombies. Nathan plays theSheriff, who must return everything to normal, whilst also winning the heart of the wife of the first guy to get infected. It's not a smart film, but there are some great moments (including one with a hand grenade) and some funny jokes.
Chris Rating: 7/10
Mission Impossible 3:
Personally, I loved the first MI film and loathed the second. It just wasn't an MI film! There was way too much gunplay and not enough 'Missions' for me! When I heard JJ Abrams (Thje guy behind Alias and Lost) was directing this, my expectations began to rise and on the whole, I wasn't disappointed. To me, there is still too much gunplay and the opening acttion sequence is a little OTT and lacks the subtlety of the IMF. Tom Cruise (and actor whose work I generally like) is pleasant enough in this, without ever really stretching himself, but the supporting cast is pretty good (hell, even Jonathan Rhys Meyers doesn't utterly suck). The ace though is Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays the bad guy (tm) and puts in a superbly evil performance. There is a scene in the Vatican which is pretty good, one on a bridge which is exciting and another set piece set in teh skyscrapers of um... Tokyo? that was pretty exciting, but sadly the final scene is a little flat. In conclusion, better than number 2 (by miles), but still not as good as the first film.
Chris rating: 7/10
The da Vinci Code:
I loved the book! I loved most of the casting for this film (Jean Reno and Sir Ian McKellen in particular), but I wasn't quite sold on the prospect of Tom Hanks in the lead role. Sadly, this film turned out to be a bit of a disappointment for me. It's hard to say what's gone wrong with it, but I think it was perhaps down to a lack of chemsitry between...well... ANYONE! There should have been a competitive spark beween Hanks and Reno (but there wasn't and Jean Reno was sadly underused). There should have been one between Bettany and Molina (though Bettany WAS superb). There really wasn't any chemistry in the film. As a result, there is little tension (in fact the last 30 minutes are so tension free, they border being outright dull). Hanks must take the blame for this, the character is supposed to be a little shy, but Hanks just played him without emotion or expression, there was none of the original characters passion. Sharing the blame must be Ron Howard, who managed to turn an exciting book into a bit of a dull film.
Chris Rating: 5.5/10
X-Men - The Last Stand:
This is the review that will get me beaten up! I admit that I feared for this film when the director of the first two films went to do Superman. The anxiety grew when they skipped through directors, ending up with the guy who did the Rush Hour films... don't get me wrong, they're a laugh, but that's not what I wanted form the X films. It got worse, when it transpired that they were writing this film by committee and were going to rush it out, so that it hit the cinemas before Superman. Alarm bells REALLY started ringing, when spoilers were leaked, suggesting several key characters would be killed off... So it was with some trepidation that I went to see it... and my fears were realised. The first two films were about characters and relationships. You got to know the characters, got to feel for them and symnpathise with them.There were conflicts, but often the line between good and bad was blurred... This films just shat all over that. Characterisation? BAH! Lets just blow shit up, must have been the motto of the team of writers (who probably haven't ever read any X Men stuff.) To make matters worse, they took one of the finest comics ever and fucked it up! The story of Pheonix was immense, it's a tragedy on an epic scale and the story of Scott and Jean and the decisions that had to be made. Courtesy of the writers, this element was removed early on (and utterly wasted and devoid of impact.) So Wolverine has to tkae the Scott role... which would be fine if they hadn't de-clawed him. Yep, Wolvie has lost his beserker side and no longer seems to give a shit about his past... The Pheonix story is more messed up by the fact that Jean just stands around for most of the film (bar one shocking scene). What a waste! I have a suspicion that the proper Pheonix effect was too expensive for them to film in a short time, so that was ditched too. Ok, Sir Ian manages to add some weight to the proceedings and his scene with the non-mutant Mystique is brutal (Lets not even start on a simple injection that will alter your DNA!), but most of the rest of the bad guys are just nameless grunts and cannon fooder, so you don't give a shit what happens to them. And there's the biggest problem... you don;t care... character die left right and centre and you don't give a shit. This film was SO wasteful and disappojnting, that the scoire I'm gonna give it is going down as I type!
Am I just ranting because I'm a rabid fanboy, who doesn't want to see anything change form the comics? No, the first 2 films deviated a lot, but that was cool, I loved those films! I'm ranting because I invested in these characters and some Fox dipshit exec screwed that investment up.
Chris Rating 4/10
Ok, that's all folks... let me know what you think and if I've missed any films!