 |
| Movie Poster! |
Self, didn't that come out a few months ago & it's shortly coming on DVD/Blu-Ray soon?Uh... it's a bit odd that you refer to yourself as Self but yes. It did come out a few months & is shortly to be out on the movie playing discs. But as said in posts past I live just a few short blocks from a 2nd run movie theater & if I don't mind waiting I see most major movies at a discounted price (3 Dollars). Knowing that it was soon to be on DVD/Blu-Ray & that the theater stops playing said movies when they do that I had only a short while to see it. So, I did that yesterday.
What did I think about it? Was good. I think that my viewing of the summer comic book movies is in an interesting order. I saw Green Lantern disliked it. I saw Thor next, liked it. Now I seen this & not sure if I liked more or less then Thor but I have 1 left: Captain America: The First Avenger. So, that should be the best of the four. Yes, I know that Cowboys Vs. Aliens was based off of a comic book but it's not super hero related so I'm not counting that. Plus, I don't really want to see that movie.
There was 1 kind of major part of the movie that I'm not sure worked all that well: The Era. Sure, they say it's the 1960's & keep showing things from the swinging '60s (Clothes, Cars, Reel to Reel Tape Players, JFK, etc.) but all background stuff. It just didn't seem like the 1960's. Doctor Who on a smaller budget (I'm not sure but this is a movie & Who is a TV show which to me means less money behind it) seemed to have done the 60's quite nicely a few months back. This version of the 60's just seemed off. The X Uniform I think do not look like something that would have been present during the time period. I just looks too modern. If you can put the "what era are we actually in?" out of your mind you can have a quite nice time at the movies. It's not a bad movie.
There was few nitpick things:
- I'm not sure Havok's powers work that way. I think I knew what they were going for "He's Cyclops' bother so his powers should work in similar fashion" Uh... no. Just because their brothers doesn't mean they have similar powers.
- Beasts' makeup from X-Men 3 looked better. It just looked more Beasty to me. I will say that I did think effect done with Beast's feet while he wasn't so furry earlier on in the film did look cool. I did make me wonder how he got his feet into his shoes. They looked like he folded his toes under & that can't be comfortable to walk like that.
- Banshee wasn't Irish or at least he didn't sound Irish. Yes, he could have been the American born child of 2 Irish immigrants but that's not how it's in the comics.
- Why kill off the only black mutant before he has a chance to really do anything?
I have a pretty good basic knowledge of the X-Men mythos & who people are but I just didn't know who Azazel (red Nightcrawler) & Riptide (who I had to look up online for his character's name since I don't it was ever said in the movie & I missed during the end credits) are. I might do some more research on them later on, I might not.
I thought it was a fun movie. I liked the relationships between Charles, Erik & Raven. I thought the scenes of Charles attempting to pick up women (Your a mutant, I'm a Mutant, Mutants are sexy, let's have sex) was funny. I liked the cameo in the movie (one of the better cameos from the Marvel movies since it's slightly served a story purpose).
What do I give it? 3 mutated genes out of 5. I did think about of saying 3 X's out 5. But XXX is something else :)
Until next time: Stay Jazzy everybody!
- Brian
2 comments:
Yeah, I'd say this review is pretty fair. Killing off Darwin was cheap, gratuitous and made no sense for Shaw to do, since he'd made so much noise about not wanting to kill any other mutants.
And I think you are also right about the '60s setting not being developed as well as it could've been.
I also liked the same things about it that you did: the relationships between Charles and Erik, Charles and Mystique, and the start of a relationship between Erik and Mystique, and Charles's cheesy party-boy shtick with the genetics-themed pickup lines. I loved those things so much, though, that my appraisal is more like four stars than three.
(And I knew who Azazel was --- there's this six-part Uncanny X-Men arc called "The Draco" that addresses the question of Nightcrawler's parentage; that's where Azazel is introduced. I didn't think it was anything special, but I got it because Nightcrawler is one of my favorite characters and I was excited to see something with him at the center. But Azazel is kind of a boring character, I thought.)
There is kind of a WTF aspect to the character roster in every X-Men movie ... you always wonder what on Earth these two characters who never meet in the series, or have only met a few times, and always on different teams, are doing thrown together in a given movie. I'd say adding Azazel to the mostly-Hellfire Club villain team is definitely a WTF move.
And I'd also had no idea who Riptide is.
my movie rating is high subjective & no movie I've even seen has gotten a 5. Not sure what a movie would have to do to get that. Very few movies ever get the 4 (which might as well be a 5). Most of the "good" movies I see get a 3 or 3 & half out of 5. Very few ever get a 2 out of 5 & there is only movie I've seen but have yet to blog about has gotten a 1 out of 5.
Thanks for the info on Azazel. I assumed he was someone from the comic but I've never been a huge X-Men reader so there are bound to be people I know nothing about.
I do wonder what they'll do if they make a "Second Class" movie since many of the characters that were part of that group. The "All-New, All Different " X-Men from the '70's have already been introduced here or in other movies.
and Thanks for replying!
Post a Comment