You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

X-men Origins *Spoiler Warning*

Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 4:44am

Post 1 of 51

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

So what did you all think of X-men? I missed the midnight showing because I thought it was on friday night (yes, I felt like an idiot) but I immediately reserved tickets for the show the following morning. I thought the film exceeded my expectations in some ways, but disappointed me in others.

For instance, the bond and separation between Sabertooth and Wolverine was very well portrayed by both actors, despite it seeming a bit rushed. The plot was understandable, though not predictable, the action was bad ass, and while it had a lot of cliches (e.g. walking away from the helicopter explosion) I think they pulled it off rather well.

One thing I didn't like was how some characters like Gambit had no real purpose at all. I loved the idea of putting Gambit in the film, but he had absolutely no impact on the plot. Overall it was a really well put together film, and it's got me crossing my fingers for an X4.

9/10
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 5:57am

Post 2 of 51

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

Meh. I enjoyed it, but it was by no means spectacular. The whole motorcycle/helicopter/truck chase scene was quite good, Jackman did good as usual, and seeing Gambit was excellent. But it seems that Liev Schreiber, whom I've liked in everything I've seen him in, pales into insignificance when you put Jackman beside him. Its not that he seems physically weaker in any way, but every scene that they share is so completely dominated by Wolverine's presence that I was feeling bad for the guy by the end of the first act.

The comic-panel posturing during the opening credits montage was waaaay overdone, and jumped straight past the tough/cool target they were aiming for into absurd and embarrasingly laughable.

The general plot they decided to follow, while it may upset some purists of the Marvel canon, I thought worked well, with the exception of the fact that you can't slap a good solid ending onto a Wolverine origin considering the films that already exist. So there was less resolution than I would have liked, but that's the nature of the beast in this case.

I'd disagree about Gambit though; he served a purpose, in that he was the only one who could lead Wolverine to the Island. Though I will agree his integration into the plot could perhaps have been tighter.

Reading through what I've just posted, I seem to be able to think of a lot more complaints that positive aspects, but don't get me wrong, I still found the film enjoyable. I went in with quite low expectations, assuming that there would be lots of cool action vaguely connected by some sort of plot, and I wasn't disappointed.
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 8:29am

Post 3 of 51

PLANB

Force: 1312 | Joined: 20th Dec 2006 | Posts: 218

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

My drama teacher was involved with the fight scenes.

Yeah Hugh Jackman is a really nice guy and a good actor too!

The Australian premier was spot on biggrin
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 3:10pm

Post 4 of 51

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Axeman wrote:

but every scene that they share is so completely dominated by Wolverine's presence
Isn't that the entire X-Men film franchise?
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 3:23pm

Post 5 of 51

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

Nah, in the X-Men films I felt that the rest of the cast held their own, and really, the rest of the Wolverine cast did as well. Though he does consistently have a powerful, dramatic presence.
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 3:32pm

Post 6 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Wow Many, many changes from origins mini series. It's cool though, not to bad of a flick.

I'm not complaining. I'm just stating this because they said that they were very "true" to the comic series when filming or whatever, when they clearly were not.
They replaced Dog and Rose with Sabertooth and made him Logans brother. Wow I didn't think that they would actually do that being that it's as far from what was actually in the origins books as possible.

Deadpool and his little freakshow of powers? I'm Not gonna bother with that one dude. I will say that it was the lamest part of the movie though. I didn't think anyone could ruin a character that no one liked to begin with. Heh. He had it worse than Blob. Poor guy.

I am kinda wondering why they fiddled with Blob's, Scott's and Remy's age though.
If Xmen origins was 15 years ago, according to the original Xmen movie... Scott would now be between 31 and 35 maybe. Blob is supposed to be a kid like Scott. Remy looked like he was 26 so add fifteen years to that.

So it was kinda cool. Almost like reading an issue of the old "what if" series. You know, kinda like if you read an issue titled "What if... someone wrote a Wolverine origins movie in which only his age makes sense and the rest is the total and complete oppositte of the actual origin story." Well at least they got the bone claws right. LOL!
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 3:42pm

Post 7 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Axeman wrote:

Nah, in the X-Men films I felt that the rest of the cast held their own, and really, the rest of the Wolverine cast did as well. Though he does consistently have a powerful, dramatic presence.
Did you guys notice that he's always getting his rear end handed to him in the flicks? It's a good thing he's got the healing factor because they turned him into a wuss that can't fight. well maybe except for his first scene in the cage match in the 1st flick. He did seem all bad ass in that fight.
Oh wait! Is that intentional? He can win against any human but is doomed to be humiliated in a fight with another mutant? Poor guy.
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 3:42pm

Post 8 of 51

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Axeman wrote:

Nah, in the X-Men films I felt that the rest of the cast held their own, and really, the rest of the Wolverine cast did as well. Though he does consistently have a powerful, dramatic presence.
I was more making a joke about how all three X-Men movies before this were all about Wolverine and his story. Now there's a fourth one.
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 3:43pm

Post 9 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

BackOfTheHearse wrote:

Axeman wrote:

Nah, in the X-Men films I felt that the rest of the cast held their own, and really, the rest of the Wolverine cast did as well. Though he does consistently have a powerful, dramatic presence.
I was more making a joke about how all three X-Men movies before this were all about Wolverine and his story. Now there's a fourth one.
Yeah, should be Wolverine and the Xmen? Heh.
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 4:06pm

Post 10 of 51

nitrox

Force: 105 | Joined: 27th Dec 2007 | Posts: 160

Member

I just got back from seeing this movie, to be honest it just left me a little... unimpressed. I know i'll probably get some people disagree with what I'm about to say, but here go's.....

1. I thought in some places the compositing was quite bad that it kinda distracted me from the movie, I also think that in some scenes his (wolverines) claws looked great, and then in some scenes not quite as good. I also disliked the whole Sabertooth "running on all fours" thing that we saw so much of, I understand they are playing up to his character of being more of an animal, and next to wolverine maybe it need it, but for me i just didn't like it.

While I'm sure most people got a kick out of seeing characters from the x-men universe played out on film, i felt they were just shoe-horned into the story for no other reason than maybe toy sales.

I'm not saying it was a bad film, i just was hoping for a little more, which to be honest was my own fault to start with, i should by now be used to Hollywoods rubbish rehash of movies.

2 out of 5 for me.
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 5:44pm

Post 11 of 51

Axeman

Force: 17995 | Joined: 20th Jan 2002 | Posts: 6124

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

SuperUser

spydurhank wrote:

Did you guys notice that he's always getting his rear end handed to him in the flicks? It's a good thing he's got the healing factor because they turned him into a wuss that can't fight.
Actually, he does pretty well until he goes up against a girl. Both the first movies he totally dominates until the end when he fights a girl, and then he just gets hammered. That always annoyed me too.
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 7:25pm

Post 12 of 51

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

This movie took the #1 slot in my "Worst Comicbook Movies Ever" list. And not because it didn't follow the story of the books, that didn't bother me at all. It was the dodgy B-Movie/Cliche filmmaking. It was laughable. My theater was booing and laughing throughout (The credits had the loudest of the two followed by a lot of loud "What?!'s).

1.) Scraping the ground where you see no visible gasoline and then a fire starts and blows up the helicopter?

2.) Slow-mo walk away from the helicopter blowing up? (1980's)

3.) Horrible horrible effects. Many didn't look close to being finished/polished.

4.) Emma Frost looked like a bunch of tiny diamonds put together.

5.) Deadpool with swords in his arms? Completely took away from the effectiveness of those weapons. He was destroying bullets flying at him when they were just swords. We've already seen Baraka in Mortal Kombat...

6.) I cringed watching Jackman slice the fire escape ladder or whatever it was. Their use of speeding up footage was completely noticeable in some of the fight sequences. Really really amateur looking.

I could go on. This movie was so so bad and it hurts to even think that I spent $13.50 on it. A movie has never actually made me legitimately pissed off ha. It looked like a cheesy TV Movie.

2/10 -- Deadpools sword play (before the surgery) kept it from being a 1/10.
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 8:26pm

Post 13 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I'm glad I'm not alone but it's cool though. One someone will get it right and make a good Marvel comic movie. I think it's like nitrox said. The big companies are just looking for that quick buck and screw everything else. I'm gonna watch it again today or tomorrow just to make sure I didn't miss anything. What in the blue hell has the movie world come to?
Posted: Sun, 3rd May 2009, 10:58pm

Post 14 of 51

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

spydurhank wrote:

One someone will get it right and make a good Marvel comic movie.
... Yeah, like getting Robert Downey Jr. to play Iron Man and then getting Favreau to dir- oh, wait.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 12:34am

Post 15 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

spydurhank wrote:

One someone will get it right and make a good Marvel comic movie.
... Yeah, like getting Robert Downey Jr. to play Iron Man and then getting Favreau to dir- oh, wait.
My fault, if I had only said "comic movie" like I wanted too, then someone would have made the same kind of remark about Watchmen that you just made about Iron Man because I included the company name Marvel.
So in trying to avoid any crap, I ended up starting some anyway.
I shoulda just said "Xmen comic movie" to begin with. Hows that work for you?
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 12:48am

Post 16 of 51

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Actually, I rather liked X2. smile
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 1:25am

Post 17 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I dunno man.
I thought that they were all just as campy and goofball-ish as all the Spidey flicks. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be humor in them but damn dude. It's freaking hilarious that they keep killing off the main good and bad guys.

Then the human Swiss Army knife that's had over 200 years worth of experience in fighting, War, Black ops, trained Samurai, can't hold his own against pretty much anyone. He's a glorified self repairing punching bag is what he is. They turned the tough as nails and meanest little mutant in Marvel into a big giant crybaby when someone dies.
Wolverine doesn't cry dude, exacts revenge.
He doesn't fall to his knees and pouts a quivering lip over a fallen comrade, he kicks into super duper berserker rage mode and starts taking names.
But no. All they really accomplished in doing was turning Wolverine into a... well a Wolver-weenie! Ha!
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 3:01am

Post 18 of 51

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Are you guys all high?!? X2? Spiderman 2?!?!?
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 3:36am

Post 19 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Are you guys all high?!? X2? Spiderman 2?!?!?
I didn't care too much for them if that's what you're asking.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 3:38am

Post 20 of 51

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Are you guys all high?!? X2? Spiderman 2?!?!?
I haven't seen X2, but aren't both of these movies supposed to be excellent? As in, some of the greatest superhero movies ever? I think Spiderman 2 definitely is. What is it you didn't like about them?
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 3:39am

Post 21 of 51

BackOfTheHearse

Force: 2660 | Joined: 17th Nov 2001 | Posts: 1099

EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Are you guys all high?!?
Well, yeah. I am. What's your point? razz
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 6:57am

Post 22 of 51

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

haven't seen X2, but aren't both of these movies supposed to be excellent? As in, some of the greatest superhero movies ever?
X-Men 2 is my favorite comic book movie. It's absolutely brilliant and really really well directed. Going to see Wolverine tonight, though I'm not expecting it to be good really. But I rather enjoy Hugh Jackman.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 7:19am

Post 23 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

jawa johnny wrote:

ben 3308 wrote:

Are you guys all high?!? X2? Spiderman 2?!?!?
I haven't seen X2, but aren't both of these movies supposed to be excellent? As in, some of the greatest superhero movies ever? I think Spiderman 2 definitely is. What is it you didn't like about them?
Dude! I really dig that you asked why I don't like them rather than being rude and make whatever kind of comments before knowing why I said I don't like them in the first place, just like a lot of other folks do. THANK YOU FOR THAT! Your awesome!

I understand that directors have their own vision of how a certain film should be portrayed, but sometimes more often then not, they just get it wrong. The effects, lighting, grading and acting could be spot on but if the characters are done half assed then the movie is really gonna suffer.
I feel that in both the Spidey and X Men flicks, all of the main and supporting characters, that includes bad guys, were not portrayed to their full potential and came across as more of a joke.

Like say, IMO the best acting in the Spidey flicks was done by Alfred Molina as Dock Ock and Lowell if I spelled it right, from Wings that played The Sand Man. It's like they picked the worst cast that they could think of and made the movies worse by making them way too corny and campy. It worked for the old BatMan t.v. series but that's why no one took it very seriously. In the flicks, Parker cries every 5 minutes and Logan gets whupped just as many times. All the effects in the world can't save that from the tragedy which the movies have become.

Aside from some of the CGI work... The only Marvel based movie that I really liked was The Incredible Hulk. The actors were bad ass and they did a great freaking job. See what I'm saying? The characters where believable in the last Hulk flick so you felt for them, you understood what they were going through and why they did what they did. The Spidey and X men movies... yeah not so much.

Marvel is by far very well known for having the tortured anti hero in their books such as the X men, Punisher, Hulk and Spidey because they're shunned by society but in the flicks the only one that they've gotten right so far as near as I can tell is the Hulk. As much as I'm into the Punisher, the Hulk's the underdog in my book and the only one that they did an awesome job with, in most part because of the actors who were great.

They don't need to turn these fictional characters into big flaming bags of puke that people won't understand or relate too just to make a quick buck. They have a crap load of stories to tell and could just as easily take their time with the movies to let the actors developed the characters a bit better but they don't.
They throw the villains and the heroes into the mix that really don't fit in with whatever time period is being portrayed or in the wrong context just because they think that those characters are what the fans want to see.

If they know what and whom a fan wants to see... don't you think that they'd at least know how a fan thinks their hero or villain should be portrayed? I mean damn dude. The fans are the ones that read the books and all, and I also understand that they want to cater to as many audiences as they can. But you don't have to church everything up to make it more appealing just so they'll buy movie tickets right?

Hey who knows man. I'm most likely way off base but thanks again for asking for my opinion man. Very cool and that's about all I've got for you.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 7:22am

Post 24 of 51

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Hm, maybe I'm slightly biased according to my Ian McKellen fandom, but I thought his Magneto was probably one of the best villains in movie history. Totally loved him myself.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 7:40am

Post 25 of 51

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I thought Ian Mckellen was decent, although excessively "1940's Dastardly sniveling villain"-ish.


Pretty much loved Xmen 1 and 2 though. The third one had it's moments, but was mostly bloated.


Wolverine was actually rather entertaining. Although the fact that he's indestructible kind of took some of the tension out.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 7:51am

Post 26 of 51

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The thing I always liked about Wolverine was that he was indestructable but not invincible. As in, he survived all fights, but was not assured to win really any of them. He was always a scrappy fighter who insisted upon using his hands, and was almost always bested by foes who used long-range weapons.

Also, I thought Liev Schrieber did a great job in this film. And I think for once, excuses aside, CX3 is too scathing on this comic book film. I have no idea how you drop to a 1/10 on this movie, but to each his own. Lastly, I loved the film, just agree that there were two big flaws in the otherwise great special FX: the claws in many scenes (reflections of blue in all-orange toned scenes, etc) and the cutting the fire escape bit, which was so poorly sped up/rotoscoped/digital that it was awful. As for the keying, having seen the workprint I respected most all of it, and was reminded of what even simple-looking shots had special FX in them (ALL of the shots of his girlfriend in the latter 1/2 of the film were keyed, etc).

Altogether, it's a 7/10 for me, and my theater experience improved over my workprint viewing. So I liked it, and thought it was a proper follow-up to X3.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 2:25pm

Post 27 of 51

fertesz

Force: 1765 | Joined: 25th Apr 2003 | Posts: 470

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Heh, it definately wasn't as good as I hoped.

Gambit was the worst bit I think, maybe because I always liked him. His introduction is great (only one to ever escape, winning with guards and such), but from the moment he appears on screen, it seems worse and worse. I don't even like his power effects, like charging cards. Not to mention his eyes - mayor letdown. I think he was thrown in the mix, just to get more attention. But as I said, I always liked the character, so most people may not care at all...

Deadpool was freaky too. His human form was cool, but this altered Deadpool was weird. I never cared much about that character, but what they did to him seemed to take his purpuse away.

The movie seemed rushed. I would rather have them make 2 movies, and take their time, instead of trying to fit it into one movie duration. It could be better if it was longer/divided into two movies.

Example: after adamantium is implanted into Wolvie, he just runs away, instead of making a carnage. Really - he should trash this place. The whole procedure had less psychological effect on him, not to mention he got accustumed to his new weight a bit to quick. It should take him some time.

I'm not sure adamantium bullet would pierce his scull that easily. It's not only the question of bullets hardness, but also of force it was fired with. Adamantium was supposed to be indestructible, so I don't think that could happen. And by the way - as the bullet didn't seem to pass through his head, I assume it's still there? eek

I think the movie was rushed. But, I have to give it a credit for being better then X3. Not that it's hard really imho.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 5:55pm

Post 28 of 51

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

At least X3 had a strong visual effects team. If the cg isn't on par with a film of that caliber, it will take me out of it so quickly. From the cg down to the editing, Wolverine was way too rushed. The film doesn't offer much to the overall X-Men story other than give Deadpool a spin off series (If you stayed until after the credits). I don't have much faith in it though after seeing Deadpool with optic blasts and swords coming out of his arms.

I really hope 5 years from now this series gets a proper reboot. They're doing it with Fantastic 4, I don't see why they wouldn't start over with X-Men. It's so watered down now.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 6:05pm

Post 29 of 51

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Reboots to me are the absolute cheapest/pettiest-looking thing a movie studio can do, right behind recasting an actor/actress in a direct sequel (I'm looking at you, Maggie Gylenhall). I'd argue against you on an X-Men reboot strongly, CX3.

The series isn't watered-down, not in the least. Wolverine is, in essence, it's own standalone film- and only adds to the franchise I'd say. Then we've got two absolutely excellent films (X-Men and X2) and one still great but somewhat irresolute and not-as-good-as-the-former film that still stands as an apt and good enough addition to the series to warrant its creation in the first place. Lest we not forget, X3 wasn't terrible, it just wasn't as good as the previous two. The Godfather Part III wasn't a bad movie, either, but people love to hate it for the excellence of the previous two.

Daredevil's getting a reboot- which I find a shame- I've always stood by Affleck's DD as an excellent, gritty interpretation. If you didn't like the movie or found it too preposterous/cheap- watch the R-rated extended edition Director's Cut (available on iTunes, I think, too)- it's absolutely excellent. Gives DD much more complexity, angst, and character development- and the extended cut is easily in my top comic book movies of all time list: Right below Spidey 2, Batman Begins, and X2. Yes, it's above The Dark Knight.

Now onto Wolverine:

With the exception of a few special effects flubs that remained cringe-worthy and looked 'rushed' (some of the claw shots and the ladder scene) I felt the movie moved along nicely and presented a fully satisfying, adequate origin movie for Wolverine. It shortchanged a few good moments for drama or mystique/mystery for action, but in doing so it made itself into the cat-and-mouse thrill ride we always knew a pre-X-Men, post-adamantium Wolverine would be.

I really liked it. Nothing terribly spectacular, no, but nothing of a lost opportunity or shitstorm the way some people want to caption it as. The story, while formulaic, I really liked. The inclusion of Gambit I thought was well played and damn-near perfectly portrayed. Come on, guys, the character is cool but never was or was going to be anything more than a side addition- as he was in the comics and in the animated series. In this regard I really liked him and how they played him as 'the only one to get off the island'- a great character reveal, I thought. The red eyes bother me about as much as Wolverine not having his signature mask in the first X-Men film- I'm fine without it as it would've looked ridiculous or out-of-place. Instead, I thought the focus in on them turning red for a moment- and all the other Gambit effects- were the strong points of the visual effects in the movie, and I really liked them.

People are complaining about ages and timelines, but why? I thought they did a particularly good job of following this up. Scott Summers, aka Cyclops, never sees Wolverine- and is led to join Xavier (another stunning use of the de-aging program on a surprising Patrick Stewart cameo) along with a few others when he's roughly 15 years old. And it's roughly 15-20 years in the past. What's wrong with this? That puts them all at the correct ages. Gambit will be older, sure, but that just explains why we don't see him in the later series, does it not? I thought they handled this well. As you can see with Stryker's son, too, he's about 5 or 6, making him the correct age in X2 as well. With the exception of the recast of Sabertooth and Stryker- I thought Wolverine did a rather good job of keeping the timelines and mythos of the franchise pretty straight and uncluttered/messed-up.

Additionally- I can't believe people haven't mentioned- at least more than they have- how excellent Hugh Jackman is in the movie. The man seems as if he can do no wrong, brings an edge and credibility to the film that warrants the origins movie alone. People wonder why Wolverine is the center of all the movies- I'd argue, and have for many years, he really isn't. He's the catalyst- and is so because his story is such a compelling leaping point for the first two films. Once they landed an actor like Hugh Jackman- who based his career around that role and people continue to absolutely adore- why wouldn't you push Wolverine into each story more, you know?

Those things aside, though, I want to mention that I thought all the 80s action nods were nice and smile-worthy- complete with little electric guitar stings- because it made it clear this was a movie based in the late 70s/early-to-mid 80s and that while it retained the flavor of the first X-Men films, it had a clear sense of self that was willing to appear cheaper in some regards, less-polished; but still a fiery, motivated movie. Much like Wolverine himself.

Lastly I think it's important to point out the excellent acting/casting in the movie. For all of the extremely iffy, odd, or seemingly bad choices of actors they picked for this movie early on- I enjoyed them all immeasurably.

Sabertooth, Blob, Wraith, Wade/Deadpool (As Ryan Reynolds), Agent Zero, Gambit- All really embodied their characters in interesting, more-grounded ways that I thought were all really entertaining and just plain cool; sprinkled with a bit of humor. Liev Shrieber shined in my eyes out of the lot, but the rest weren't far behind. Aside from the obvious facial resemblances Shrieber and Jackman have- I thought their brotherly connection was really intriguing and well-acted; the two had great chemistry together. Sure, they altered the 'origins' comic book to include this- but is that really a bother? The origins books weren't made until a couple of years ago anyway- and even then some people chose not to treat them as the official Wolverine backstory. I thought the movie script took the best parts of it all and put them together nicely.

And while I was sad to not see the inclusion of Brian Cox- I still thought Danny Huston, the new/younger William Stryker, did an excellent job of capturing that on-the-fringe-of-mad-scientist persona the character always had. It was quieter, less threatening than Cox's interpretation- but these reservations made his mind even scarier.

A good movie that people want to hate, I'd say. And a real shame, too, because if you go in- regardless of expectation- willing to live a little- you'll really enjoy Wolverine. A worthy and rather appropriate addition to the X-Men franchise in my opinion.

7/10
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 6:18pm

Post 30 of 51

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Fun movie. Worth my $9.

I'll admit though, there is part of my that really wishes that Wolverine could have lived the rest of his life in the Canadian Rockies, living in his sweet back-country home with his beautiful girl and working as a lumberjack.

I honestly would have loved to watch 2 hours of that.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 6:26pm

Post 31 of 51

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

One more thing:

Spydurhank- bite your tongue. Tobey Maguire is perhaps some of the best casting choices I've ever seen in any movie. Right above Hugh Jackman as Wolverine.

Both bring such a humanity to their roles- both are so highly-regarded for their work in those roles- and both are so captivating- I can't see how you could attack them. As the movies have progressed, so has Maguire's Peter Parker- both physically and in character complexity. I look at Spider-Man 1 and I see a naive, young-looking Parker. I look at the iffy but still good Spider-Man 3 and I see Peter Parker, the man. Maguire just pulls it off so well, man. There's real acting range and growth in the Spidey franchise through him, and I really like that.

In my eyes, Tobey Maguire is and always will be Peter Parker. I'm sure numerous people would agree with me. I didn't expect to like him as much as I do before Spider-Man came out; I thought he was poorly cast. But Tobey Maguire brought something so genuine and special, so perfectly-fitting to the Spider-Man films that I'd easily argue he has been the acting/casting benchmark and one of the catalyst' for the model of 'how to make a great comic book movie'.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 7:33pm

Post 32 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

That's cool if you think so dude but I just don't see it. I think he's rather bad as Spidey and Parker. It's cool that he can make himself cry on demand but does he have to do it so often? Give me an onion and I can do the same thing. LOL. I can see him being a shy and timid 15 or 16 year old but he stays that way up till his college years and never seems to grow up. Now he's a shy and timid 22 or 23 year old with tendencies that lean toward whining a lot.

As I said before Wolverine is now nothing more than a glorified punching bag. And yes He's a whiner as well because that's what they turned him into. He never walked away from weapon X like that. What? one of the hard as stone killers in the world all of a sudden decided that what he was doing was wrong? Na dude they were hunting down and killing folks back then, all cold war style. Right up to the point where he volunteered for the adamantium bonding process. Now he's a whiner with metal coated on his bones and poor Jackman's the one that has to play him that way. Come on dude. He get's beat up everyother scene. It's like he can't even defend himself and is always outclassed.

Banner is a whole different matter. He's being chased and hunted by his own government across central and north America. He's homeless and penniless for a while. Guess what? He had it worse than Spidey, Not as bad as the "Weenie" but he didn't cry about it dude. He found a way to end up on top. Bruce himself has no superhuman abilities but he went through a great deal while never giving up or crying about it. That's the true loner which Spidey and Logan are supposed to be but that's not how they are in the flicks.

I never said the movies were bad. I just didn't like the portrayel of those characters. They leave a lot to be desired to make me even come close to try and relate with what they're going through that's all.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:27pm

Post 33 of 51

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Reboots to me are the absolute cheapest/pettiest-looking thing a movie studio can do

Atom wrote:

my top comic book movies of all time list: Right below Spidey 2, Batman Begins, and X2.
Reboots must not be that bad seeing as how Batman Begins is number 2 on your top comicbook movies. What?? haha

I'd put money down that this franchise gets a reboot. They still aren't a fraction as good as what they could have been story wise. X2 is hands down my favorite but it was still based off of the first one (which could have been soooo much better in terms of a starter). It wasn't bad but it wasn't as deep as they could have made it because understandably so, they had to warm up the audience.

Now that this has been done, they could move on with a more in depth look at the team and get into some darker stuff (not too too dark though - I understand kids are still the majority of the target audience unfortunately ha). But I mean how do you think the new Batman series got to where it is now? I give it 5 years max... That is if human life is still going on by then ha.


EDIT: As for Spiderman -- Tobey is not ANYTHING like Spiderman/Parker should be. Spider man is a complete smart ass and talks shit constantly as he's fighting. Maguire was way more nerd than he should have been (I'm sure it was in the script though). But I still enjoyed Spiderman 2. I just accepted the fact that we weren't going to see the actual Spiderman.

Last edited Mon, 4th May 2009, 10:51pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:44pm

Post 34 of 51

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Just coming back from seeing it. To me surprise, it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. I rather enjoyed it. It did some rather strong changes to the X Men story I'm familiar with, but that didn't make me hate it with a passion. I also liked some of the side nods to the other 2 X Men movies and the inclusion of some characters like Professor X (played by a rather CG looking Patrick Stewart clone).

Some of the claw shots were terrible, among the worst CG I've seen in a big blockbuster. Looked incredibly unfinished in some shots, mainly the one in front of the mirror in the bathroom.

Other then that, it was good fun, however not by far up to par with the other X Men films.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:47pm

Post 35 of 51

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Looked incredibly unfinished in some shots, mainly the one in front of the mirror in the bathroom.
That's exactly the shot I cringed at! I assumed, after watching the workprint, it would be one of the biggest fixes; instead it appears they threw a random reflection texture on a low-polygon model and just said 'f#ck it'. biggrin
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:49pm

Post 36 of 51

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm sick of this 'make it darker, reboot' bullshit that everyone seems to be wanting to do. The Dark Knight was darker because the character, Batman, is a darker one. Tim Burton's initial films were dark like this to begin with, too. It's because the character warranted it.

X-Men isn't one of those kind of franchises. You don't just keep retrying for the perfect film, CX3, and you should know that. It's rather a ridiculous thing to do when I tend to think X-Men and X2 are the best X-Men starter and sequel films anyone could've realistically made. And even then, all of the X-Men films have been a far cry from happy-meal-selling- all present social themes pretty complexly and tackle these themes with an intricacy only, really, adult or older kids are keen to notice.

Don't shortchange what's been an excellent set of movies. You seem to have the mob mentality to go the nuclear option and reboot everything- but X-Men and Spider-Man started out and continued so enormously strong as films, and have yet to detrimentally decline, I see absolutely nothing warranting that kind of option.

Not to mention, unlike Hulk, they're franchises with wildly popular characters- were gigantic commercial and critical successes, and have passionate people- myself included- who still swear by the movies as some of the best ever.

Last edited Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:57pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:50pm

Post 37 of 51

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Reboots to me are the absolute cheapest/pettiest-looking thing a movie studio can do
Batman, James Bond, Star Trek. Cheap and petty... I think not. Surely, reboots are in style now. However I can see where you're coming from, Atom. But I just can't think of a poorly handled reboot at the moment. And you're right. Spidey and X-Men certainly don't need rebooting. They just need to come up with the right story.

Last edited Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:54pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:51pm

Post 38 of 51

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

it would be one of the biggest fixes; instead it appears they threw a random reflection texture on a low-polygon model and just said 'f#ck it'.
Yeah, that shot was a complete mystery for me. I still can't imagine how a shot as unfinished as this (rotoscoping was bad, matchmoving was as wobbly as it can get and from the look of it, it was a prerender without any reflections) can make it into a summer blockbuster.

I can only imagine someone at the premiere going "Oh crap.. I forgot to finish that"
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 9:56pm

Post 39 of 51

spydurhank

Force: 1956 | Joined: 24th Jun 2008 | Posts: 1357

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

it would be one of the biggest fixes; instead it appears they threw a random reflection texture on a low-polygon model and just said 'f#ck it'.
Yeah, that shot was a complete mystery for me. I still can't imagine how a shot as unfinished as this (rotoscoping was bad, matchmoving was as wobbly as it can get and from the look of it, it was a prerender without any reflections) can make it into a summer blockbuster.

I can only imagine someone at the premiere going "Oh crap.. I forgot to finish that"
Yeah his buddies are gonna smack him in the forehead for that one.
I wonder why they would release something that clearly wasn't finished.
somebody's gonna be pissed.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 10:03pm

Post 40 of 51

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You mistake me, jawajohnny. Maybe I need to rephrase it:

Premature/Unwarranted reboots are the cheapest/pettiest thing you can do to a series. But even when appropriate or handled correctly, they are still, at least subconsciously, cheap to me- there's something less genuine and overdone about remakes/reboots- something lost in a work not being the original of its kind or not part of an original series.

I dunno, maybe it's just me. Star Trek, Bond, and Batman Begins were all appropriate because they were franchises that started off rocky to begin with and fell into detrimental, massive decline before being rebooted. The latter Star Trek films, Die Another Day, and Batman & Robin are some of the most critically-panned films of all time, after all.

X-Men: The Last Stand, Spider-Man 3, and Wolverine have all been so-so- but far from critically-panned and far from commercial flops or public-scour.
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 10:13pm

Post 41 of 51

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Yeah Atom, I was pretty sure that's where you were going with it. You're absolutely right. smile
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 11:04pm

Post 42 of 51

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I'm sick of this 'make it darker, reboot' bullshit that everyone seems to be wanting to do. The Dark Knight was darker because the character, Batman, is a darker one. Tim Burton's initial films were dark like this to begin with, too. It's because the character warranted it.

X-Men isn't one of those kind of franchises. You don't just keep retrying for the perfect film, CX3, and you should know that.
Please don't belittle me by telling me what I should or shouldn't know. Gimme a break, man. Adding that to your post doesn't make it any more valid. X-Men isn't one of those franchises???! After reading that, I see it's a waste of time to even talk about that with you, sir. X-Men can be dark

Atom wrote:

It's rather a ridiculous thing to do when I tend to think X-Men and X2 are the best X-Men starter and sequel films anyone could've realistically made.
You've seen the future? You've seen all of the infinite possibilities eh? Or is it just the italics that's supposed to make that a strong statement?

Atom wrote:

You seem to have the mob mentality to go the nuclear option and reboot everything-
So just wanting an X-Men reboot means I want to reboot... everything?

Atom........ *sigh*
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 11:08pm

Post 43 of 51

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -1

You're attacking semantics, man. Really, word-by-word, and missing what I was saying. I never said X-Men couldn't be dark- but to an extent it already is; and that measure of realism/grittiness yielded great results- both from a critical/cinematic perspective and a sheer entertainment one. Going beyond that, to me, would only be a stroke in the 'fix everything by making it like The Dark Knight' mantra seemingly everyone wants to follow- without anything really warranting it.

I think you're just upset with Wolverine and that's leading you to believe something that isn't true, man.

CX3................*sigh*
Posted: Mon, 4th May 2009, 11:41pm

Post 44 of 51

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I never said X-Men couldn't be dark- but to an extent it already is
But I don't think it is. At least not how I'd envision it.

Atom wrote:

Going beyond that, to me, would only be a stroke in the 'fix everything by making it like The Dark Knight' mantra seemingly everyone wants to follow- without anything really warranting it.
Yes... To you. And X-Men darker wouldn't be anything like the Dark Knight. TDK had no super powers anywhere in it because they wouldn't fit, in any way shape or form (Which is why I think TDK batman wouldn't and couldn't fit anywhere in a Justice League film).

Atom wrote:

I think you're just upset with Wolverine and that's leading you to believe something that isn't true, man.
No I've been upset since X3 but Wolverine really did it in for me. I watched X2 and X3 last night -- I can honestly say that I enjoyed X3 after watching Wolverine (So that's a success in some sense, I guess...) Also, why do you always seem to know the truth? I wanna learn too!
Posted: Tue, 5th May 2009, 3:25am

Post 45 of 51

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

The problem with discussing comic book films in particular is that one person either assumes they know everything about comics or that everyone else knows nothing about comics; and the result is this brazen, condescending attitude that pretends like it knows how or why comic book films should be made, as if there were any sort of mold.

And this happens with CX3 and Atom like, all the time, when it comes to comic stuff. Atom always thinks what he said was true, CX3 always thinks that he knows more about comics than everyone. I respect both people - but when it comes to these kinds of movies both are heavily, heavily biased.

Remember the Will Smith as Green Lantern thread?biggrin
Posted: Tue, 5th May 2009, 3:44am

Post 46 of 51

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Lest we not forget, just because I don't devote the length of my filmmaking efforts to making superhero movies (wink), I'm still a very avid, long-time, comic book fan/reader.

I suspect our visions of how things could be made, given our agreements on many film pros and cons, CX3, would be very similar- although I could be wrong. I tend to think because of this, your inner comic-book-colored heart is entangled and sees me praising a non-worthy/below-par adaptation. Am I right?

I also think you're misreading what I mean by 'dark'. I mean it as the generic, blanket term you hear every studio apparently wanting to make their movies into- at least thematically. It's so silly and vague of a term- there's my humor/aggression in it. They all want the success of The Dark Knight out of their movie, so they generalize it all as the term 'dark'- two problems here, which it looks like we agree on (which makes it puzzling to me that you attacked it in the first place)-

-Batman is a very grounded, powers-less character, with the capacity to be grittier in a more realistic tone than other comics. E.G., I think the X-Men series took an appropriate, opportune route.

-'Dark' is a liquid term. It could mean a number of things and trying to tell me this and then say X-Men could be 'darker' is just plain silly. Not to mention hypocritical.

CX3 wrote:

And X-Men darker wouldn't be anything like the Dark Knight. TDK had no super powers anywhere in it because they wouldn't fit, in any way shape or form (Which is why I think TDK batman wouldn't and couldn't fit anywhere in a Justice League film).

CX3 wrote:

Also, why do you always seem to know the truth? I wanna learn too!
It would seem you're throwing out the very accusations I should be asking you, no? How do you know something will or won't work- or to what extent these characters can and cannot be taken? You, and I, both know to a general rule because there's a logical tipping point to every stretch of character and story, even comics, that can or cannot be crossed. Surely there's some subjectivity in it all. Some general consensus everyone can agree on. How else could we discern between something being 'good' and 'bad'?

Anything could be something else- it's having the boldness and bravery to believe and trust in a work, and see it through, that makes something special. When that leap of faith is with a masterwork (or something close to it)- it doesn't go unnoticed. There's a reason the X-Men and Spidey franchises have been so lauded, after all.
Posted: Tue, 5th May 2009, 7:17pm

Post 47 of 51

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Lest we not forget, just because I don't devote the length of my filmmaking efforts to making superhero movies (wink)
You don't know what I'm doing out here, sir.

Atom wrote:

I suspect our visions of how things could be made, given our agreements on many film pros and cons, CX3, would be very similar- although I could be wrong. I tend to think because of this, your inner comic-book-colored heart is entangled and sees me praising a non-worthy/below-par adaptation. Am I right?
No, you can praise all you want. It's your opinion. I'm just saying that I could see Xmen being taken further (Many others do... I'm not the only one on the planet who thinks like this...) And in turn when I say things like that, then come the "CX3 knows all about comics and such" from your brother and you. Usually every time... And I don't.

Atom wrote:

I also think you're misreading what I mean by 'dark'. I mean it as the generic, blanket term you hear every studio apparently wanting to make their movies into- at least thematically. It's so silly and vague of a term- there's my humor/aggression in it. They all want the success of The Dark Knight out of their movie, so they generalize it all as the term 'dark'- two problems here, which it looks like we agree on (which makes it puzzling to me that you attacked it in the first place)

-'Dark' is a liquid term. It could mean a number of things and trying to tell me this and then say X-Men could be 'darker' is just plain silly. Not to mention hypocritical.
I'm confused on what you were talking about when you said dark. I meant dark as in "Takes itself a little more seriously" or "Hint of a little more maturity". Keep the same setting and characters but take the scenarios and interaction more seriously (This can be done with the way its written, shot and edited). I figure that's what anyone means when they say dark. You can apply that to any film. Sorry that wasn't clear but I didn't even understand that was an issue in the first place ha.

Atom wrote:

You, and I, both know to a general rule because there's a logical tipping point to every stretch of character and story, even comics, that can or cannot be crossed.
This is where our opinions of Science Fiction drastically differ. You shouldn't make claims like that.

Atom wrote:

How do you know something will or won't work- or to what extent these characters can and cannot be taken?

Atom wrote:

it's having the boldness and bravery to believe and trust in a work
I'm lost on what you're saying. I take it as either 1 of 2 things.

1.) You're telling me to have the bravery to believe and trust in another filmmakers already completed work. Lets say X3 just for an example. I'm supposed to just trust it and accept it and not question if it could be made better. Which is kind of messed up and I'm pretty sure you don't mean that.

2.) You're saying filmmakers should have the boldness and bravery to trust in the visions that they believe a work could be. Which is exactly what I'm doing but I'm just getting railed by you because I don't hold the same opinion as you and could see X-Men being something completely different then it is. I would just LIKE to see it done differently. Why am I in the wrong for wanting that?

Let's not kid ourselves. Usually when someone doesn't hold the same opinion as you, you beat it into the ground with that person. Whether it be someone else movies, your movies, politics, ect... You have spun many-a-thread into what "You" only believe and what others shouldn't (I've seen members say that about you in occasional threads that get a lil outta hand). I'm saying that I could see it being better and you are saying it can't and/or doesn't need to be better. I'm not sure if I should apologize for having my imagination run wild in the superhero setting but that's what I like to think about a lot in terms of movies.

From here on out I will fully keep my opinions of Superhero films from off this site. Not worth the time talking it out (At least with you, from my understanding).

AGREE to DISAGREE!


surprised
Posted: Wed, 6th May 2009, 2:59am

Post 48 of 51

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hey, look, I didn't mean to attack you on your point. Rather, I think because of my reputation you found it acceptable to throw some condescension and hypocrisy my way- on something that is entirely opinion, I agree- and get away with it. You've got some rather obvious and strong feelings and biases regarding superhero films, understandably so, but to act like you know better and then calling me out on that very thing is just........silly.

Just because I won't allow that to happen doesn't mean I think my opinion is the only one. Picking apart what I write doesn't mean you're any bit more correct or that I'm any bit more snarky with what I'm saying.

Agree to disagree, fine, but don't go all high-and-mighty like you're so right and I'm an idiot trying to beat you to the ground with my pretentious opinion. Please.

Such isn't at all the case. We agree on enough things on here, its silly to let this one divide us so, you know?
Posted: Wed, 6th May 2009, 4:48am

Post 49 of 51

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

lol like I said, I'd just like to see X-Men done in a different fashion. And for wanting that sir, I apologize. Now please stop talking to me pleeeease hugegrin
Posted: Thu, 7th May 2009, 1:51am

Post 50 of 51

Goldwing Productions

Force: 401 | Joined: 1st Oct 2006 | Posts: 175

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I personally would have only given the movie 6/10 stars. There are many aspects which I loved, most notably Hugh Jackman's portrayal. However, I feel that the plot was filled with too many extraneous characters which resulted in a less complete vision of Wolverine's actual origins. Also, I feel the choice to bump the movie down to a PG-13 rating is a bad choice to simply garner more viewers. Wolverine is, in the fewest words, a bad ass; therefore, claws should be hacking limbs and his muscle-bone structure should be regenerating more graphically. Even the disaster that was X3 showed a good deal of regeneration on Logan's part.

However, I cannot deny the good performances of Hugh Jackman. Liev Schrieber, and Taylor Kitsch. If only a few plot points had been changed and no punches pulled on Wolvie's aggressive primal rage.
Posted: Thu, 7th May 2009, 11:03am

Post 51 of 51

fertesz

Force: 1765 | Joined: 25th Apr 2003 | Posts: 470

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Goldwing Productions wrote:

Even the disaster that was X3 showed a good deal of regeneration on Logan's part.
Yeah... Including him regenerating his shirt and disappearing blood eek Talk about regenerative power eek