quote: Justin Gorka

---

Yawn, and why is there a bit after the credits? Do we really need people staying in to the very end?

---

You don't stay to the very end? And yes, we do really need people to stay to the very end and without being harassed by pimply adolescent usher/cleaners with their brooms and pickup pails, blabbering loudly so they can be heard over the music score, about what club they are going to frequent on the weekend and if perhaps they are going to get laid (I happen to know that they've got about a 98% chance they won't, but I don't volunteer that information).
 

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 05-24-2006, 01:52 PM:
 
Had no choice my turn to preview the crap!
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 05-24-2006, 03:21 PM:
 
Frank nailed it right there!
 

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 05-24-2006, 05:47 PM:
 
Our lot arn't allowed into a screen until the last person has left on pain of having to man the Baskin Robbins counter!
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 05-24-2006, 06:51 PM:
 

 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-24-2006, 07:28 PM:
 
"You don't stay to the very end? And yes, we do really need people to stay to the very end and without being harassed by pimply adolescent usher/cleaners with their brooms and pickup pails, blabbering loudly so they can be heard over the music score"

When we moved to having the half-lights on during the credits, cleaning during them seemed fair game, no sense of presentation anymore. When you have as few staff as we do and the programming can be ridiculous from our view at times, it's all too easy to want to get a screen done asap.

If people are actually watching the credits we wait, but nearly all the time they are getting their bags together or making out or talking. So I echo Frank's comments and suggest you watch the entire film. And complain about the lights being on during the trailers and credits!
 

---

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 05-24-2006, 11:06 PM:
 
yes well I think the yawn bit was right, almosted nodded off here

at least the focus was reasonable with this one , but the print was very very grainy and the analogue sound was terrible (no DTS disc) there was nothing coming out of the surround speakers at all. 2 out of 5.

Dont have much of an issue with people watching all the credits here , soon as they hit the screen they all stampede for the door, and In we go with the tools.

I did learn a lesson many years ago , never shut off the credits whith people still in the cinema , I did this once at the drive in many moons ago and nearly got taken out for it by an angry customer.
It turned out that his uncle was an assistant gaffer in the film and he brought along all his friends to show them his name on the big screen , then i shut it off, didn't I, the balloon burst and i will leave the rest to your imagination.

The next morning I fitted new hinges to the booth door.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-24-2006, 11:34 PM:
 
Not a bad movie. I enjoyed it. But I still think X-Men 2 is my favorite in the series so far.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-25-2006, 09:54 AM:
 
This movie perfectly captures the essence of Scott Lobdel's run on the comic in the mid-90s. And by that I mean it sucked.

Maybe that's a little too harsh. It wasn't bad so much as it was stupid. As far as mindless action movies go, this one's okay. But the fact that it's a follow up to X2, an extremely smart and well-made movie, just sort of amplifies its flaws.

As far as credits go, I used to be really hardcore about staying through all of them. But then I did the math and figured out that if I watch one movie a day, I'll be sitting through about 30 hours of credits a year! I don't have that much time. Besides, the only ones which are significant to me are writer, director, DP, and editor, so what's the point?

And my theory as to why that scene appears at the end of the credits instead of in the movie itself? The filmmakers' shame was probably a motivating factor.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-25-2006, 11:22 AM:
 
This is just a thought, don't take it too personal... but...

The point of spending the time to watch credits is that every single person in the credits worked very hard on that film, whether the film sucked or not, and deserves enough respect to be treated as if they counted, instead of being told that they have no relevant point.

Last I checked, writers, directors, DP's and editors cannot do films such as these on their own. And regardless of if it sucked, the people who broke their backs didn't make it suck, but they still deserve people to recognise that they worked hard and tried.

It is the same reason we don't just huck our trash from our happy meals straight out of our windows and onto the road, or spit on people we walk by on the street, or steal everything in site becase we can. We have respect for those around us, and for ourselves. Or at least we should.

How many times have we as individuals complained because we didn't get the respect we felt we deserved, only to turn around and give absolutely no respect in our own actions?

It is the very least I can do to just stick around a few minutes and pay my respects to those that worked so hard to bring me this movie. Then I follow it up by packing out my garbage and other crap, and thank those hard working ushers as we leave the theater.

It's all about self respect when you reach out to respect the hard work of others.

There are 8760 hours in the course of a non-leap year. If you sleep for one third, and work for one third, then you are left with 2920 hours of personal time. If you spend 30 hours a year watching credits, or in my assertion, paying proper respect for the hard work of hundreds of people in just a few mintues a shot, than this would only take 1.03 percent of your free time.

The people in the credits may not know you are doing it, but the time you take to respect others accomplishments can only build up your own desire to have self respect and require that those around you respect you as much as you do yourself.

As for the film, as this thread has had little to do with the actual film, I am excited to see it. I will not let the the other two films or the lack of Brian Singer to affect my judgement of it. I will allow it to stand on its own. It still might suck, but we will see.

Just a though...

Ciao
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-25-2006, 12:30 PM:
 
I would hope that, more than anything else, the people making movies would think of someone watching their movies as the ultimate form of respect. Not watching credits allows me to watch 15 more movies a year. And while writers, directors, DPs, and editors cannot make movies by themselves, they are, generally speaking, the driving artistic forces behind their movies. I'm not watching the credits out of respect for these individuals. I just want to be able to cross-reference their work. For example, I can see that the writers, director, DP, and editor of SUPERMAN RETURNS all worked on X2. Based on that, I can assume that SUPERMAN RETURNS will kick a noteworthy amount of ass, and I'll be sure not to miss it.

EDIT: The problem with judging X-MEN: THE LAST STAND on its own merits is that it doesn't stand on its own. It relies heavily on what has come before it. It's not going in bold new directions like, say, the Mission: Impossible franchise has done. Instead, it's moving the ongoing saga forward. Well, sort of forward and downward. If you were to graph it, it would probably be at about a 45 degree angle. So maybe that is a new direction. But it's not bold.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-25-2006, 12:32 PM:
 
Credits are part of the movie: respect them, don't clean during them, and stay for them unless bladder is about to explode.

As for the film, eh. I love X-Men. I thought this was rushed, and taken time with. It could have been great, but the story and some plot points really ticked me off. I won't spoil, but I'm just really mad about a couple things.

All in all, it's ok, and to quote Phil, "I liked it "

AJG
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 05-25-2006, 03:47 PM:
 
I heard they fucked up the Phoenix storyline. Reviewers? www.aintitcool.com guys are livid about the movie.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-25-2006, 07:17 PM:
 
Quite a few people coming out of the screen today said it sucked. You can tell how bad a film is by how quickly people leave at the end. Cleared pretty fast, but few obviously knew about the end bit and so we didn't start cleaning.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-25-2006, 07:29 PM:
 
If the idiot sales-droid-fuck-head-idiot-dolts had to push through their own "our focus studies show this movie will make more money if we change these 30-year old well-established plot points" on the Phoenix saga -then I can fully understand why Bryan Singer jumped ship and went over to directing the new Superman movie.

If X3 ends up really sucking oily ass, then I know Superman Returns ought to be pretty good. Sales guys don't know SHIT about making movies. They need to shut their f**king mouths and let the real, talented filmmakers do their thing. Those idiots know how to sell. They know NOTHING AT ALL on how to create.
 

---

Posted by Jason Miller (Member # 2341) on 05-25-2006, 07:46 PM:
 
SPOILERS BELOW.

I was EXTREMELY disappointed with the Phoenix story change. The effects were cool.. but I hated how she was able to just disintegrate people. I kept hoping for the flaming bird to pop up but she looked more like a Dawn of the Dead Jean Gray.

and although Juggernaut had my favorite line in the movie when he was chasing Shadowcat, I was pissed they just deleted the part about him being Xavier's half brother and the one thought above all others was to destroy Professor X.

maybe because I am a fan of the time-tested storylines...

but they did finally use Colossus. they Used Angel and Leech. They made an ok attempt at Beast.. but he should have been bigger. I wanted desparately for them to cameo Nightcrawler.. but he never showed.

The Iceman/Pyro battle at the end was good.. and finally seeing the iceman I remember as a kid was awesome.

I would give it 3 out of 5.

sorry for the spoilers. and now I have to go back tonight to catch the end of the credits because I went to the restroom and missed it.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-25-2006, 10:11 PM:
 

quote: Jason Miller

---

and now I have to go back tonight to catch the end of the credits because I went to the restroom and missed it.

---

Don't do it, man! You'll only regret it. Just cut your losses and walk away...
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-25-2006, 11:58 PM:
 
I watched the 90's cartoon series, but not the films. I'm a Batman person when it comes to comics. Do I need to see the other two films to get this one?
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-26-2006, 12:52 AM:
 
Caleb,

Oh, man! Boy, I don't know how to stress this strongly enough, but for your own well being, see the other movies first. It's not that you wouldn't be able to pick up what's going on in this one. But ultimately, you wouldn't get anything out of it except for some mild entertainment. The first two, however, are well worth watching. Especially the second one. If you watch the new one first, it'll ruin the other two.

It sounds like we have similar tastes. I'm a die hard Batman fan and couldn't care less about X-Men. But X2 is awesome regardless. Just stay home and watch the other two this weekend. You'll have much more fun than the rest of us.
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 05-26-2006, 01:26 AM:
 
Kindasorta a spoiler alert:

One of the reviewers on Aint it Cool News said it was 'bland'. I totally agree.

But my one big question is: When Wolverine was walking up to Phoenix at the end of the movie, and all his clothes/skin were being ripped off from her 'powers'...Why must his pants be the ONLY thing left of his body?? A butt shot of him would have made that movie 10x better!
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-26-2006, 05:53 AM:
 
I saw the first one, a part or two from the second one, and now this third one. I don't think I needed to see the second one to fill in plot points. It didn't seem like anything I couldn't guess, and I wouldn't want to.

That said, this movie was pretty good. Exactly what I expected, which wasn't much. Battle scenes, some good effects, some bad effects, lots of one-liners for the audience's sake, etc. I don't see what the big deal is, or why people hated it or thought it was bland ... it was just like the first one, as I remember it, which I saw only once, in the theatre.

To mirror Allison's comment (SPOILER AHEAD), this movie would have been 10x WORSE if we DIDN'T get to see a fleshy, human Mystique lying on the floor as a brunette. And I'm not even a Rebecca Romijn fan! (SPOILER DONE)

The only interesting conversations I could have post-viewing would be abstract moral and political discussions based on the definition of "mutant" and how it pertains to the "cure" and the hypocrisy of mutants being offended by its existence, and all that nonsense that the film itself doesn't delve into as much as it could in another medium. (I never read the comics OR watched the animated series.) Just don't get me started on DNA and genotypes and the magic "quick-fix" nature of the "cure". I suspended my disbelief enough!
 

---

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 05-26-2006, 10:02 AM:
 
X-Men 2 was much better. I got kinda bored with this one, caught my self looking at the time more than once!
 

---

Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 05-26-2006, 07:45 PM:
 
Last night we ran four midnight shows. Some of our managers were viewing it among the throngs. It was very interesting to learn that one auditorium contained an audience who loved it, cheered, ooh'ed and ah'ed, and was excited about the experience. Another auditorium, with the SAME number of tickets sold (roughly, of course) contained a bored, jeering, did-we-really-wait-in-line-all-day? audience who laughed at the absurdity of its cheesy lines and effects!

Now, I doubt seriously that those who would have loved it and those who would have hated it were COINCIDENTALLY segregated into their respective auditoriums, so this really fascinates me as an example of chaos theory as applied to mob mentality. This one's going to have mixed reviews all over the place, it seems.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 05-26-2006, 07:51 PM:
 
ZERO outta 5! Truely a POS!
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-26-2006, 10:59 PM:
 
CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: MAN is it stuffy in here!
RATING: Three stars (out of four)

WARNING: Hugh Jackman butt shots can cause temporary blindness resulting in spoilers

Correct title, by the way, is "X-Men: The Last Stand" (2006).

MAN you should see the near capacity crowd in this room. It looks like an IT convention. I've never seen so many cowlicks in
all my life.

My companion for the movie is my friend Jennifer, who has been a fan of the comic since her college days. My exposure to X-Men begins and ends with the movies. The only insider anything I recognize in the movie is Stan Lee's obligatory cameo.

Bringing Jennifer to a movie is entertainment in itself. Jennifer gets very emotionally involved in her movies. There were points during X2 that she had to hold her mouth to keep from screaming out loud. She is known to bounce up and down clapping in her seat. Before this movie started, she apologized in advance to the cowlick in the seat in front of her. He and the guy with him said "Oooh! Are you gonna freak out?" To which I said "She's a complete psycho", and she didn't deny it.

The crowd went NUTS for the Nacho Libre trailer. BIG time. I kind of went nuts for Superman when I saw who's playing Lex.

Okay. From the perspective of somebody who has no exposure to X-Men beyond the movies: This wasn't as good as the first two, but it was still good. I thought the Phoenix stuff was a bit contrived and cheap, but I certainly don't mind that I have to watch this again at the drive-in tomorrow.

From the perspective of Jennifer, who explained the whole Phoenix thing in detail as well as a couple of other points: This wasn't as good as the first two, but it was still good. She didn't need two hours to wind down from freaking out during the movie (where at one point she was throwing fists in the air gleefully when Beast was in action) like X2. The worst part of the film for her was that they went to soft focus as the X-Men team was walking to the plane, robbing her of a perfectly good Hugh Jackman butt shot. Allison, you're not alone.

She totally geeked at the post-credit scene.

On a side note regarding the credits...I can't remember there ever being a five-column credit roll before. But segments of these credits were done that way. It made them shorter if nothing else.
 

---

Posted by Lee Michael Breese (Member # 3056) on 05-27-2006, 12:24 AM:
 
In my opinion of the movie for never really reading the comics and just touching base of the old cartoon series. This one entertained me more then less. I was not a fan of the first X-men it seemed to me when I watched it that they were kinda siting there making this movie wondering how the hell they were going to fit this into such a short amount of time. I know there are die hard fans who will be disapointed. As when it came to Serenity I practicly threw the kitchen sink at the screen when Wash and Book were killed (Firefly fans you got to love them.) As I always say not every movie is going to be driven with a amazing plot or charater development if so then our busniess would not have made it out of the 80's alive. I was entertained and I enjoyed the movie very much.

As for credits when I worked at my old theatre I always had credit watchers and I saw how mad the got when we would try to clean shows while they were still watching credits so at this theatre with that extra scene I am going to tell my staff to just wait until it is over to go clean the theatre. I was always taught Presentation starts when the customer enters the building and ends when they are in there car on the drive home.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-27-2006, 12:07 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

"our focus studies show this movie will make more money if we change these 30-year old well-established plot points" on the Phoenix saga -then I can fully understand why Bryan Singer jumped ship and went over to directing the new Superman movie

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

...where they are altering the Superman saga in equally-annoying ways. "Lois Lane has 'moved on?'" Gimme a break.

---

The difference is that the Phoenix saga is a very specific story which is considered to be almost sacred in the comic book community. On the other hand, SUPERMAN RETURNS is not really altering the pre-established mythology in a drastic way. It seems like they're basically saying, "You know the story. Here's what happens next." That's pretty cool.

By the way, off topic, can anyone think of a Superman story that the movie may be somewhat based on? The closest I've come up with is KINGDOM COME, but that goes way beyond just Superman.
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-27-2006, 02:04 PM:
 
"The difference is that the Phoenix saga is a very specific story which is considered to be almost sacred in the comic book community."

Why would someone want to make a movie with the same story line as in the comics? There wouldn't be much to look forward to in the movie? Right? Who cares about comic books anyways? It's just like D & D, I enjoyed as a teenager - but then I grew up. Comic Book fans over 25 need to get a life!

I heard that this film was rushed to beat out Superman. Guess what that means - they both are gonna suck.

I am a huge Brett Ratner fan - but this movie isn't much to talk about.

outta five stars
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-27-2006, 02:44 PM:
 

quote:

---

Why would someone want to make a movie with the same story line as in the comics? There wouldn't be much to look forward to in the movie? Right? Who cares about comic books anyways? It's just like D & D, I enjoyed as a teenager - but then I grew up. Comic Book fans over 25 need to get a life!

---

What did you think of SIN CITY? That movie is word-for-word, shot-for-shot, the same as the comic, and it's the best comic book movie ever made. There's more to a movie than just the story. Also, the mere fact that you are changing media makes it a different experience (in this case, a better one).

Would you consider SIN CITY to be inappropriate for adults? How about A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE? I noticed that you gave V FOR VENDETTA a very positive review. That's just a dumbed down version of the comic. What decade are we living in? I thought by now people knew better.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 05-27-2006, 02:57 PM:
 
Excellent film. When I say excellent I mean it kept me entertained for two hours without any pathetic un-necessary mushy love scenes.

The audience at our midnight show went nuts over the snakes on a plane trailer.

[ 05-27-2006, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-27-2006, 03:13 PM:
 
Dude, chill.

I could actually care less where the story of a movie came from. I only care what is up on that big screen. Hence, one reason I post on Film-Tech.com and not Comic-Tech.com.

They are only movies. The point I was making is that too many people get caught in the story lines. Thats it.

BTW- you went back and looked at my past reviews of movies? Can I get some of your free time?
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-27-2006, 04:12 PM:
 
Dennis,
Maybe I came off a little strong. Sorry about that. What can I say? I was offended. It's just that you hear people say "Get a Life!" all the time. Unless it's coming from William Shatner, I'm not down with that for two reasons. It's mean and stupid. The funny part is, it's usually coming from people who just sat through X3. But I'm over it now. No big deal.

Anyway, on to more interesting topics of discussion, If you would have said that it doesn't matter how true to the source material a movie is, I would have agreed with you. Who cares? They should use what works best. In the case of THE DA VINCI CODE, they changed the story of Jesus. They made it more interesting, and that's cool. On the other hand, you've got people who are really attached to the original story, and they're outside protesting. That's the point I was trying to make. Fans of the comic would be more receptive to something which builds on the mythology than something which changes one of its key elements. I haven't read the Phoenix storyline. The X-Men are dead to me. But what's in the movie is crap. From what I've been told, the comic is much less crappy. So in this case, changing it was probably a bad idea.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-27-2006, 04:48 PM:
 

quote: Mike Schindler

---

The X-Men are dead to me.

---

Please explain. Michael, I love your enthusiasm....it sounds like passion that comes with youth. How old are you?

I know when anyone is really into a work, whatever the format, morphing it into another is always very precarious for that devotee. I know. I happen to think CAROUSEL is the be best music Richard Rogers ever wrote (he said it was one of his favorites as well). I've run that movie many times in our rep program. Sappy as it is, for whatever reason, I really love it. My mom took me to see it when I was a kid and it just clicked; those brain cells snapped together and are locked in place forever, for which I make no apologies.

Then when a live production was mounted by Lincoln Center a few years ago, my girlfriend, my brother, his wife and I went to see it. Turns out, that particular production was an abortion of the highest magnitude. And I must tell you, it was physically painful to watch it being distroyed on that stage; the emotions of anger and sadness were so strong in my gut that I would have gotten up left the theatre (dispite the $95 ticket price) had I not been with others. I am sure I would have shouted out something obscene on the way out as well. But I sat and endured it.

Here's the kicker -- my brother and his wife just thought it was peachy-keen, as I assume did most of the audience given their applause. My girlfriend had enough sense to tell me she thought it was terrible.

Thing is Michael, was I being objective? -- I think I was, perhaps a bit more critical than the others, but objective enough that I can quantify and articulate my objections which I think are legitimate. Were the people who had not seen the movie or perhaps had not loved it as much as I, were these people simply brain dead? Damn straight....and morons. Well, no....they just were looking for some entertainment while I was looking for a verification of my past memory and for the production to meet my very specific expectations.

Bottom line....Lincoln Center is DEAD TO ME!
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-27-2006, 05:43 PM:
 
Frank,
I have just crossed the threshold into the non-comic-reading age of 26.

I was raised in an environment which did not look favorably upon reading X-MEN. Then again, this was the 90s, when Marvel was at its worst. It was just one of those things. You don't read X-MEN, you don't root for the Cubs, etc. But these things have a way of sticking. I still hate the Cubs, and I've never really read X-MEN. Occasionally I'd pick it up, like when Joss Whedon started writing it. But I didn't really care either way, and I still don't. My interest in the movies comes from the fact that they were by the guy who made THE USUAL SUSPECTS. And when I watch X2, what I see as being the heaviest influence is actually THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK. I don't know if that's true or not, but that's how I contextualize it.

As far as adaptation goes, I totally agree with you. Adaptation is a really bizarre, unnatural thing. Taking text and converting it to pictures and sounds? That's a ridiculous concept, and it's unbelievable that it ever works. And when it does work, you're usually so attached to the original piece that it's impossible to judge the adaptation without bias. It's bound to disappoint because you know how to make it better, and you can't do anything about it.

I was trying to think of an example where an adaptation was vastly different and yet better than a "beloved" original, and the best I could come up with was THE LONG GOODBYE. Chandler's character is the quintessential pulp detective. In the movie, that character is very true to his origins, but he's thrown into this extraordinarily bizarre Altman universe. It not even the same decade (although he doesn't seem to notice). But it totally works.
 

---

Posted by Caleb Johnstone-Cowan (Member # 3710) on 05-27-2006, 08:23 PM:
 
Thanks for the heads up Mike, I shall rent the other two out and then go when the crowds die down.

As for age, very few children in the audience, maybe 20 out now 30 showings. Would say 70% are over 25.
 

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 05-27-2006, 08:44 PM:
 
Who are the Cubs? I take each film as it comes, I don't care about the genre, who directed it, who the star is.....A good film is a good film. In our company we have to preview every film before the public see it and belive me I've seen some dross. But at the end of the day no matter how crap a film is, if the public pay to watch it, I'm happy cos they pay my wages. I still think X-men 3 is dross though!
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-27-2006, 09:07 PM:
 
What exactly is dross? Judging by your use of the word, it sounds like dross and the Cubs are essentially the same thing.

The Cubs are a band of losers who play baseball on the north side of Chicago. Unlike the reigning league-champion White Sox on the south side of town, the Cubs haven't won a World Series since 1908. They blame their failure on a goat. I'm guessing it has more to do with their pitching.

In other words, to bring this thread back on topic, the Cubs are the baseball equivalent of X3.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-28-2006, 07:16 PM:
 
Today 5/28/06, 12:15PM, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #8, SR•D. Attendance around 35-40. Looked good, sounded great - No presentation complaints. The cleaning crew stayed out of the auditorium until the scene after the credits played out, which about a dozen people stayed for.

OK, what X3 is, is a decent summer popcorn action flic, and not much more. Like Dave Williams, I know nothing about X-Men except the movies, so the movies stand on their own, and they mostly work for me. Couldn't tell you whether the Phoenix story was botched or not, I have no idea. Anyway I was sufficiently entertained by X3 to give it a pass, although I don't think it's nearly as good as X1.

POSSIBLE SPOILER: Did the movie give an explanation of the kid on Alcatraz who supposedly was the source of the "cure"? Maybe I was zoned out but I don't think they explained that at all, just "he's the source of the cure". Huh?!

3 out of 5 stars from me.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-28-2006, 08:48 PM:
 

quote: Dennis Benjamin

---

Why would someone want to make a movie with the same story line as in the comics?

---

Same reason for adapting an already published book into movie form. If its a good story then it may be worth using for a movie. And the already existing work demands some sense of respect. If the book, comic, graphic novel or whatever previously published idea is good enough to make into a movie then it must have already had some good stuff going on in it.

However, I really dislike when movie people feel they can just jack around with an already well established storyline -often with the arrogance of feeling they know how to tell the story better. Honestly, if that's how they really feel then they need to come up with their own f**king story idea rather than scavenging over other peoples ideas!


I've seen a lot of really good books horribly butchered in their movie counterparts. One of the worst offenders of all time has to be Bonfire of the Vanities.

As arrogant as some filmmakers seem to be, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did another version of Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet where the main characters survived and lived happily ever after at the end. Ridiculous? Hardly. I'm sure there's more than a few of those corporate types with slide rule results saying the new remakes will do better with happy endings.

My complaints are different from the practical dilema of compartmentalizing a novel into the space of a 2 hour movie. That can be done without changing around fundamental aspects of a story.

Even still, the 2 hour movie format is very limiting when it comes to treating novels properly. Many books would work a lot better as a multi-part cable mini-series or something like that.
 

---

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 05-28-2006, 08:58 PM:
 
#############SPOILER FOR DAVID###########

As far as I could tell, the kids X gene gave him the power to "take away" other mutants powers, but only within a few feet of him. So I guess they derived "the cure" from his DNA.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 05-29-2006, 01:01 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

or Hamlet where the main characters survived and lived happily ever after at the end.

---

Hmm... The Lion King?
 

---

Posted by Jason Winn (Member # 3568) on 05-29-2006, 02:28 AM:
 
I loved this movie. It was probably the best one of the series. I don't care if they changed the Pheonix storyline or not. I know nothing about the comics, so I could care less. It was a fun and exciting movie.

Rumor has it that they're gonna come out with a Wolverine spin-off movie, with just Wolverine by himself. For some reason, Wolverine seems to be everybodys favorite X-men character. My favorite X-men character is "The Multiple Man" Jamie Madrox. I just love his name.

Since this is Film-Tech, I guess I ought to critique the presentation. I saw it at the Studio Movie Grill in Plano, TX. The presentation was perfect! I've seen my fair share of crappy presentations lately, so this was a nice breath of fresh air. Good job, Chris, Brad, and anyone else that works at that theatre.
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 05-29-2006, 12:43 PM:
 

quote: Mike Schindler

---

Not watching credits allows me to watch 15 more movies a year

---

This would be true if you could bank your saved time like you bank saved money. As time is linear and not cyclical, this is not possible. It actually comes down to effective time management. Time management starts with self respect, and ends with respect for others. The two are inexorably intertwined, and should not be separated. When you show other respect, and demand the same for yourself, you will be able to free up your time more effectively.

I have a pool table, and a TV. I love certain shows, and I love to play pool. Doing both activities at the same time saves me two hours a day, which I now spend bicycling to improve my health. This is respect for myself. It also shows respect for others by trying to slim down my fat ass.

Ciao
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-29-2006, 01:11 PM:
 
I guess I don't quite see how self respect relates to time management, but wouldn't dividing your attention between TV watching and pool be "disrespectful" to both the filmmakers and your opponent? I can't imagine watching THE SOPRANOS while playing pool. I'd miss so much in terms of photography, since the light in the environment wouldn't be controlled, sound design, since I wouldn't be sitting in the "sweet spot" for the 5.1 channels, and especially editing, since I'd be taking shots during half of the cuts. And tell me you're not looking away as those credits roll at faster-than-light speed. As for your opponent, don't they deserve to play you at your best? How can you expect to do that when you're worried about Tony getting whacked?

Of course, I'm exaggerating, but my point is that we all show respect in different ways, and I don't see any benefit to anyone in me sitting through five minutes of credits. And while I may not be able to watch 15 more movies a year, there have certainly been times, like today, where I realized that I would have just enough time to watch ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 before the Sox game started if only I stopped it before the end of the credits.

[ 05-29-2006, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Mike Schindler ]
 

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 05-29-2006, 05:14 PM:
 
Just ou of curiosity (sorry about the spelling) do you americans actually do anything that is dangerous, apart fron declaing war on countries with a stange name? yOUR Footballers have body armour, rounders is called baseball(a mans sport?) and you're hopless at real football(soccer)!
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-29-2006, 07:56 PM:
 
Of course we do dangerous stuff! This weekend, millions of Americans risked blindness by going to see X-MEN: THE LAST STAND .
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-29-2006, 10:30 PM:
 
Back on subject...

I liked the third X Men movie well enough. I read X Men when I was 13 and then stopped. I'm familiar with the characters but not the exact story line from the comics, which helps me enjoy the movies.

I do think Halle Barry makes a terrible Storm though.
 

---

Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 05-30-2006, 09:03 AM:
 
I liked it.
All the mutants "coming out" kind of reminded me of "Mystery Men"

Guess there are a few actors that no longer want to be in the Xmen franchise....
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-30-2006, 12:25 PM:
 
Say what you will about the X-Men movies, but they always seem to put butts in the seats.

After watching it again, I was able to pick up a few more things, and I liked it a little more.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-30-2006, 12:35 PM:
 
X3 had the 4th-biggest opening ever. Someone from Fox said in an interview the age group demographics for the opening weekend audience is broader than they expected. Also that it's drawing a "crossover" audience and not just X-Men fanatics. Go figure.
 

---

Posted by Ian Woloschin (Member # 3709) on 05-30-2006, 07:51 PM:
 
I just saw X3 last night (5/29/06) at the Lowes (AMC?) Theater in Stony Brook, NY.

The movie itself was pretty good, I never read the X-Men comics, though I know a decent amount of the story from my college roommate last year. I was surprised with the direction they took in the movie, but overall, as a action flick, I almost can justify paying $8.25 for it (yay student rates...).

I say almost because when I'm back up at school this fall I'll be showing X3 myself and I'll see it for free, granted from in a booth, but the quality is better.

Presentation wise, film was scratched (already!) slightly, but nothing horrible. Was slightly out of focus the entire time, though I didn't really notice this until the credits, when it was *very* noticable. I'm not sure if it was just me or the projector, but it seemed like the image was very flickery, almost like if the shutter was closed too long on each frame, but it's probably just me being used to the image my old DP-70s put out at school.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-30-2006, 09:05 PM:
 

quote: David Stambaugh

---

Someone from Fox said in an interview the age group demographics for the opening weekend audience is broader than they expected. Also that it's drawing a "crossover" audience and not just X-Men fanatics. Go figure.

---