Flixens: Movies, DVDs, TV, comic books and pop culture for women. The boys shouldn't have all the fun.

Last "X-Men" Falls to Pieces

I have never read any of the comics, so I was only able to try to make sense of the latest X-Men film, X-Men: The Last Stand using the information I had from the previous X-Men films, X-Men and X2. I thought that the first film was ok, and it could have been better had it not stumbled in the final parts, nor suffered from some cheap special effects (probably due to budget). Nevertheless, I did not expect to see some of these same problems two films later, and with newer difficulties.

The first film had as strength the position of being the introductory film, and so there were many possibilities in developing some of the characters that we see. Most notably, Logan’s (Hugh Jackman) story was extremely interesting, and this was strongly followed through in the second film, X2. The second film had brought the level of this series very high, but despite this X-Men: The Last Stand sadly does not stand up to either of its predecessors. It has some few bold moments, but overall I didn’t find myself caring very much about what was going on, and the presence of so many characters and so many changes happening so quickly had a numbing effect on me.

There are three main storylines from what I could tell: the first is that some pharmaceutical company has developed a cure for mutants, to render them into normal humans without special powers; the second is that Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) returns from the dead as perhaps the most powerful mutant on the planet, but has a psychological disorder; the third is that Magneto still wants to kill regular humans, and his cause is strengthened because the humans have come up with yet another plan against mutants. Besides Jean Grey’s resurrection, the other two storylines are more or less copied from the second film.

The movie will show us all of our favorite mutant friends that we expect to see (except for Nightcrawler), and perhaps triples the amount of mutants with special powers. This is the film’s first drawback: too many mutants are shown with little or no development for the majority of them, including the main characters from the previous films. When I was watching the film, this was mostly confusing but now I see it as having been a mistake. Mostly, the special powers of different mutants did not look very good, and most of the computer animation that was used looked like shiny jelly. With some exceptions, most of the special effects used during the film do not look very impressive, with simple camera set-ups and obvious practical effects. Every scene where someone is shown flying or floating in the air is quite distracting.

Even most of the action scenes were poorly done, with a couple of exceptions. The nicest scenes were with Magneto on the Golden Gate Bridge and the end of the climactic battle. Otherwise, camera shaking is heavily used during action scenes, and while this does not normally disturb me, it didn’t seem to work very well for Last Stand.

The actors mostly do a nice job with their characters, but the script for this film is horrible. I realize that I was watching an action film, and that the most important aspect is not necessarily introspection or layered character analyses, but there are limits! All of the dialogue in this film is largely composed of strings of clichéd sentences, and if we as viewers are supposed to accept such poor writing in an action film, then the dialogue must not become obtrusive.

For example, if one were compelled to make a film which contains only clichéd dialogue, then my suggestion would be to remove, or rewrite the moments when a character is giving a speech during what is supposed to be an emotional event. Storm (Halle Berry) gives one of these speeches, and though Ms. Berry performed poorly in this film, for that one scene I would place the blame on the writers.

Halle Berry was terrible, but for some reason her character, Storm, was given a larger role in this film. Most of the time, she maintains the same facial expression, and part of her special powers is the ability to spin really quickly, which I thought looked quite silly. She did not bring any weight to her character and looked mostly like a princess, even having a new hairstyle, as is noted early during the film. For some reason, the film tries to convince us that Storm’s “nemesis” is the only other black person in the film, and so she has two fight scenes that are completely unnecessary to anything having to do with the story.

Although the movie is a mess, it does manage to have a reasonable and satisfying ending, and I advise those who choose to watch it to stay until after the credits have finished for a special surprise. I am sure some people can still enjoy the film, but I do not generally advise it to fans of the previous two X-Men movies.

The other Flixens asked me to review X-Men: The Last Stand because I am not familiar with the comics, or with the controversy that apparently surrounded the film’s production. And so, I have left director Brett Ratner free of criticism, since it seems that he was thrust into this film in the middle of its early development. I could tell that a noble effort was made with this film, as the combination of various elements is always an ambitious task, and though it mostly doesn’t work in this case, it could have still been worse. I saw many interesting components in X-Men: The Last Stand, and had more care and time been invested into refining the film, it could have potentially been an impressive conclusion to the series. Sadly, the parts were not well put together, and as a result X-Men: The Last Stand falls to pieces.

(out of a maximum of 5)

I have kept the review as free of spoilers as possible. Please feel free to post in the comments section below if you have spoiler-related questions.

X3 Production History - Help

Could anyone point me to a reliable web resource on the production (plus pre-production) history of X-Men: The Last Stand?

I am particularly interested in the controversy surrounding the director's chair (Singer, Vaughn, Ratner) in the lead up to the start of production.

Am also very interested in getting a better understanding of Fox's decision to proceed without Singer. According to www.imdb.com Trivia section Singer "...has maintained in interviews that he would have loved to have gladly done this movie after completing the 'Superman' project."

Was the Fox decision driven by cost already sunk during pre-production or by the actors' contracts or by a collective desire on the part of the studio and producers to spite Singer?

Nina Kincaid's picture
Production History

There are many sites... just do a Google seach on "X3 Production History" and you'll see... but according to Wikipedia:

Bryan Singer, the director of the first two movies, left the project during preproduction in order to helm the film Superman Returns. Matthew Vaughn was hired to direct the third X-Men movie; he cast Kelsey Grammer as the Beast and Vinnie Jones as the Juggernaut, but family issues reportedly led him to withdraw from directing before shooting began. Vaughn was replaced by Singer's friend Brett Ratner [3], who was among those originally considered to direct the first film — and coincidentally was considered by Warner Brothers to direct the 2006 Superman project before it evolved into Superman Returns.

That's the official story.  As far as Singer directing both films, Fox had set a definite target date for X3's opening premiere, which would have been impossible to meet if Singer were to direct the film after wrapping up Superman Returns.

Lauren Shuler Donner is also reported to be very upset with Matthew Vaughn for pulling out of the project.  According to the Hollywood Reporter:

But Singer leaving to do "Superman Returns" -- which he discussed openly with Shuler Donner and her husband Dick Donner, the director of the 1978 "Superman"-- was tough to take. Particularly since he took all his unexpressed ideas for "X-Men 3" with him. "It was a blow," Shuler Donner admits. "He's my friend, I respect him, and saw us doing all the 'X-Men.' "

She goes on to talk about Vaughn's departure and the impact that had on the production:

After the production replaced Singer with Vaughn, the new director worked closely with the writers. Even though Shuler Donner is still furious with Vaughn for leaving, she confirms Kinberg's assertion that Vaughn contributed some brainpower to the script. "We cast Kelsey Grammer with Matthew," she admits, "who was fantastic, and Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut. We were lucky to have him."

But Vaughn's departure threw a monkey wrench into a huge $150 million production that was already stretching its resources to meet its opening date. "Then suddenly, weeks of prep time were lost," she says. "It killed us. It was an extremely desirable release date. There was no way we were going to miss that date. We had to protect it by any means possible." Go off that date and "X-Men 3" would bump into the likes of such other summer releases as Singer's own "Superman Returns" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."

Hope that helps!  Thanks for posting!

Chesty Larue's picture
Drew McWeeny's Coverage of X3

I don't remember seeing any "official" pre-production websites, but Drew McWeeny (Moriarty) over at Ain't It Cool News probably had some of the best coverage of the battles to get the film made.  Here are two links that I was able to dig up for you.  Both of these articles are worth re-reading since most of us have seen the film already and know exactly what Drew is talking about.

AICN EXCLUSIVE!! Major News On X-MEN 3! It’s Gonna Be A Bumpy Ride At Fox This Week!!

AICN EXCLUSIVE!! Wanna Know Who’s Directing X3 Now?!

Thank You and a few thoughts

A very big thank you to Nina Kincaid and Chesty Laure for your helpful posts.

My apologies for not introducing self earlier. Please call me Michael.

A bit of background. My interest in motion pictures centers around the creative and technical aspects of film making. Am also fascinated by the industry dynamics as well. The spark that flamed a mere curiosity into a hobby was the incomparable Special Features discs in Peter Jackson's massive 4-disc DVD editions of his Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

The request for help above was triggered by this post in the www.dvdtown.com message board:

Yunda Eddie Feng (Staff) wrote: 05-27-2006 - Edited: 05-27-2006

Everyone seems to blame Fox, but waiting too long to make a sequel can be bad business (see "MI3", which was made so long after "MI2" that a large part of the movie's target audience actually did not see either of its predecessors). The fact is that Fox did not want to mess with a successful team. The studio wanted Bryan Singer to direct the movie. He got greedy and wanted to helm two franchises. The principal actors in the "X-Men" franchise all have busy schedules and were finally able to squeeze the third movie into a workable time frame. They found out that Singer had given them the middle finger.

You want to blame someone for "X3"? Singer shares as much blame as everyone else since you can't put your cast on hold for an entire year.

I was quite taken aback by this rather vicious ad hominem attack on Mr. Singer and thought about asking the poster, politely, for the source that provided the foundation for such harsh words. However, caution prevailed over valor. The question of proof, particularly from a stranger, might be viewed as an affront.

Decided that a bit of research was best course.

Allow me to share with you a most interesting timeline that has been constructed from information gleaned mostly from the archives of www.variety.com.

The timeline affords us a glimpse into what was supposed to be a done deal for Fox (i.e. Singer helming X3) turning into a high stakes gamble of finding a new director late in the game.

May 4, 2003 - Opening weekend of X-Men 2 does $85m business in the US.

Dec 4, 2003 - Director Bryan Singer inks an overall deal with 20th Century Fox to develop projects he'll direct and produce. Singer separately begins negotiations to return for a third installment of the "X-Men" franchise.

Mar 4, 2004 - Variety.com reports that Bryan Singer will direct a remake of "Logan's Run" for Warner Bros. and producer Joel Silver. Singer, who just signed an overall deal at Fox, is expected to tackle "Logan's Run" before he gets back to the "X-Men" franchise.

July 16, 2004 - Variety.com reports on Sun., July 18, 2004 that Bryan Singer signed a deal Friday, July 16, 2004 to develop and direct the long-gestating new pic in Warner Bros' star-crossed Superman franchise.

March 21, 2005 - 20th Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment choose British filmmaker Matthew Vaughn ("Layer Cake") to direct "X-Men 3." Alex Young is overseeing "X-Men 3" for Fox, which is aiming for a Memorial Day May 26, 2006, release date.

May 31, 2005 - 20th Century Fox announce Matthew Vaughn departure from X-Men 3.

June 3, 2005 - Variety.com reports on Sun., Jun. 5, 2005 that Twentieth Century Fox and Marvel Entertainment set Brett Ratner on Friday night, June 3, 2005 to replace Matthew Vaughn as the director of "X3," the third installment of the "X-Men" franchise.

June 6, 2005 - Brett Ratner takes over the directing helm.

Aug 1, 2005 - Production on X-Men 3 begins. www.filmstew.com cites this date.

May 26, 2006 - Release date for X-Men 3: The Last Stand

May 29, 2006 - Opening weekend of X-Men 3: The Last Stand does $122m in the US.

The crucial period of interest is the 7 months between Dec 4, 2003 and July 16, 2004. For reasons yet unknown Fox could not get Singer's signature for X3.

Note that in the 3 months between Dec 4, 2003 and Warner's successful poaching of Singer on Mar 4, 2004 Fox did not announce a single project that it would do together with Singer - not even X3.

The timeline seems to suggest that Warner had successfully used "Logan's Run" as the wedge to pry Singer away from Fox. The "Superman" deal was Warner's coup de grace. It also appears to suggest a degree of complacency on Fox's part.

Will share thoughts on Mr. Singer's motivations in later post if there is interest.

On X3, Zahra's review is most excellent. After watching X3 in the theatre I dug up my 3 year old copy of the 2-disc DVD edition of Singer's X-Men 2. Then spent the next few nights watching the movie, listening to Singer's commentary and going through the special features.

It was a most interesting exercise that threw X3 into harsh relief and helped consolidate my perceptions of the movie. Will share thoughts if there is interest.

In regards to Samantha's

In regards to Samantha's article on the new batwoman. You stated that Renee Montoyo and the new batwoman were the only two lesbians in the DC universe. You must not read Catwoman because her friend Holly who is filling in for Catwoman is gay and has a girlfriend in the series also.

Samantha's picture
Yeah okay, you got me...

BUT, I only started reading Catwoman OYL.  And.  And.  I didn't even like it.  So no I missed the OTHER lesbian, but I am totally sure that it will be totally revealed that kathy kane totally had an affair with her too.  So there.

And why did you post this here and not with the story ABOUT Batwoman.


Nina Kincaid's picture
Michael

Thank you, Michael, for your very thoughtful and well-researched post!  Why not create an account here an upload an avatar for yourself, and a signature?  Don't be a stranger!

Zahra's picture
Wow, Michael

Thank you for putting light on the production troubles of X3. I tried doing some research on the subject, but even looking at it organized chronologically, as you have done, it is still quite confusing! From the point when Brett Ratner signed on, it seems they had nearly one year to make the film. I wonder, would this still be considered a rushed production? How does one measure the amount of time needed for a film of a certain scale?

And thank you for the compliment on the review, Michael.

Additions to X3 Timeline

Thank you, Nina, for your kind words. And thank you too for the invitation to sign up.

Forgive me if am a little skittish. Yours is the first movie orientated site where I have done an extended post.

It has been my unfortunate experience that far too often forums and message boards hosting "discussions" are little more than electronic graveyards for recycling litanies of unsubstantiated opinions, bilious comments, flaming rants, fatuous ventings, and plain ol' vulgarity.

Yours and Chesty Larue's swift and helpful responses to earlier query shaped my decision to post.

Quick question - can one go back to previous post and edit it?

I have additional information that helps put the relationship between Mr. Singer and Fox in clearer perspective:

Dec 4, 2003 - Director Bryan Singer inks an overall deal with 20th Century Fox to develop projects he'll direct and produce. Singer separately begins negotiations to return for a third installment of the "X-Men" franchise. The two-year deal is the first studio pact for Singer. Singer will have an office on The Lot. The WMA-repped Singer joins the roster of directors with overall pacts at Fox: Peter and Bobby Farrelly, James Cameron, Ridley and Tony Scott and Mel Gibson.


July 16, 2004 - Variety.com reports on Sun., July 18, 2004 that Bryan Singer signed a deal on Friday, July 16, 2004 to develop and direct the long-gestating new pic in Warner Bros' star-crossed Superman franchise. Based on Aug 5, 2004 Variety report Warner made a pay-or-play offer to Singer if he'd consent to make Superman fly post-haste. Insiders said that Warner deal is not an expensive one, because Singer only develops projects he plans on shooting and is not the sort of producer who develops numerous projects or demands a hefty discretionary fund. Fox ends its deal with Singer. While Singer doesn't believe that Fox studio chairmen Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos had the legal right to terminate his deal, he isn't going to contest the studio's request that he vacate his offices on the Fox lot.

As you can see, the new information changes the complexion of the debate about Fox's treatment of Mr. Singer and also shades light on the "greed" issue.

The timeline was constructed solely because I wanted to know if there is a case against Mr. Singer or if he was being subjected to baseless accusations.

If one cannot edit one's previous posting, is there a gated section on your website that holds only vetted information?

It would be terrific if there's a place where individual contributions could raise the collective knowledge of all participants and readers. Where each piece of information offered is backed by a credible source and its veracity vetted by the Flixens.

Please note that I can provide you with the source for each of the dated entries in my earlier post and this one.

To Zahra - on X3 Production Time

Gosh, Zahra, you have posed two absolutely great questions:

1. Would one year to make a film like X3 be considered a rushed production?
2. How does one measure the amount of time needed for a film of a certain scale?

One possible way to address question 1 would be to compare the timing (i.e. from principal photography to movie's opening) of X2 versus X3.

Note that such a comparison excludes the pre-production period which often times have a critical impact on the end product.

X2 - production starts Jun 17, 2002; movie opens May 2, 2003
X3 - production starts Aug 1, 2005; movie opens May 26, 2006

X2 total days = 319. X2 business days = 230.
X3 total days = 298. X3 business days = 215.

Note that business days only exclude weekends and not holidays. The time difference separating these two movies is 2-3 weeks.

One should also note that if a production is pressed for time it would reluctantly take the very expensive measure of having the crew, designers, craftsmen work weekends. So it is possible for X3 effective days to be 298 versus X2 business days of 230, which would translate into an almost 10 week advantage for X3. Note that this possibility is purely conjecture. Without the budget spreadsheets there is no way to know if X3 spent its $210m budget to gain time.

Is time the crucial factor separating these two movies? Would 2-3 weeks account for such a wide gap in quality between them?

Question 2 would make a terrific research topic for joint exploration.

Zahra's picture
Thanks again Michael!

I will reflect upon the matter more deeply, but I think I will only return with more questions!

cinephile's picture
Congrats

You know your stuff Michael, I applaud you.

Nina Kincaid's picture
Indeed!

Michael's definitely a man after my own heart!

Greetings, Cinephile...  Thanks for visiting and signing up!  Feel free to click on "My Account" after signing in and you can personalize your posts by editing your personal information, uploading a picture for your avatar, adding a signature, etc.

Welcome aboard!

X3 Timeline and Production History

Dear Nina Kincaid,

I have taken up your kind invitation to open an account and am posting this first message with a fair bit of news.

I took the hesitant step (with some trepidation and misgivings) of posting on the www.dvdtown.com message board under the topic X3 Timeline - A Response to Attack on Bryan Singer.

Please note in that first post the statement of thanks and credit to Nina Kincaid of www.flixen.com for the link to the Hollywood Reporter article and the accompanying excerpts.

You can read for yourself the quality of the responses to my posts there.

Am including here the additional items of interest that I had unearthed upon further research.

Am sure that many of your readers know of Sir Ian McKellen's blog where he answers his fans' questions. Found these interesting X3 related excerpts.

Sources: url (http://www.mckellen.com/epost/x3/050301.htm) and url (http://www.mckellen.com/epost/x3/050621.htm).

1 March 2005
NEW DIRECTIONS
From: Luke J.


Q: While a large part of me is happy to see Mr. Singer's career going so well (I have high hopes for Superman, now), the selfish part of me is more than saddened by his departure. Assuming you are still contractually obligated to play Magneto, do you feel any sort of concern over how the story might be treated, now that Bryan has left the X-Men family?


A: I am not contracted to play Magneto again , although I hope to be involved in the forthcoming X-Men3 which will film later in the year in Vancouver. Our loss is Superman's gain but there is now an opening for another director to make his mark on what I continue to believe is the most important of all the superhero franchises.



21 June 2005
X-MEN 3
From: Matt


Q: I've seen a lot of web sites that say steam is building up for X-men 3, they have a script and new director and most of the cast is back. But I keep seeing that you are alternately 'signed' or are 'still in talks'. So rather than find out second-hand from these other sites. I thought I'd go straight to the source. have you actually signed yet or are you still in talks?


A: Although I haven't actually signed the contract it is intended that I reprise Magneto in the 3rd X-Men movie. Shooting starts in September in Vancouver, where I shall join the cast after completing my work on Da Vinci Code.

To read why Mr. Bryan Singer chose do "Superman" see AICN's interview, published on 2004-10-12 07:01:52, at url (http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=18610).

Capone: Was it a tough decision to leave X-MEN at a point in the series where the plot for the next film, or at least part of the plot, was so clearly set up in X-2?


Bryan Singer: I had a very strong vision for the next X-MEN picture. But SUPERMAN has always been a dream of mine. Things weren't moving as quickly as...it was difficult, and I love those actors and I have a strong relationship with the X-Men universe. I'm still taking over the writing of Ultimate X-Men for a year, so I'm by no means out of that universe. But I've had an idea for a SUPERMAN movie for many years, so for me the fact that it was available and Warner Bros. was willing to take everything it had spent 11 years developing with three other directors and throw it completely out and let me start from scratch at an accelerated level of time...once they showed the willingness, the desire and excitement to do that after my pitch, it became an obvious choice for me, but a difficult one.

Out of those sterile exchanges on the www.dvdtown.com message board did come one good piece of reference information from the New York Times that made the whole exercise worthwhile. Even for that I had to dig up the source myself. Whew! The agonies and humiliations one must go through for knowledge.

The NYT article, "Fox's Own Superheroes: A Daring Duo at the Studio" by LAURA M. HOLSON, published: June 12, 2006, offers fascinating insights into the movie making process. For example, how the co-chairmen of Fox, Tom Rothman and Jim Gianopulos, determined what went on the screen for X3. Relevant extract follows:

In Hollywood, candor is as common as a blue polyester pantsuit on Rodeo Drive.
That is why the actor Hugh Jackman reacted with surprise at what he heard in a meeting at 20th Century Fox last year to discuss "X-Men: The Last Stand," the third entry in the "X-Men" trilogy. Tom Rothman, Fox's energetic co-chairman, wanted to share an idea for the movie's plot: it would center on a medical cure for the mutant gene.
"I love this idea," Mr. Rothman said effusively as he bounded across the room to greet the actor, who was deciding whether to rejoin the cast. But there was one problem, Mr. Rothman conceded: he had no other ideas. If Mr. Jackman did not like the idea, Mr. Rothman described that situation in a harshly profane term.

...
More recently, Mr. Rothman and Mr. Gianopulos were flummoxed over whether Rogue, a character in "X-Men," should give her beau a passionate kiss at the movie's end or simply hold his hand. The two executives screened the movie for their daughters as well as the studio's female marketing executives, and the hand holding prevailed. "The kissing was all about sex, and we didn't want that," said Mr. Gianopulos, grimacing.

Am not sure if I am reading the article right but does it imply that it was Tom Rothman who came up with the idea to center X3's plot on the cure for the mutant gene?

At the time of this post the complete NYT article is available at this url: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/12/business/media/12movie.html?ex=1307764800&en=771420df168faa00&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

END OF POST

Nina Kincaid's picture
Interesting

Michael, thanks for joining our merry band.  And thank you for the mention over on dvdtown.com (but remember, it's flixenS.com, flixens is plural! :wink:)

I can understand the animosity towards Singer, whether warranted or not, simply because the fans perceived that they had what might have been the perfect comic book trilogy snatched from their hands.  I'm sure many hoped that Singer would shepherd the entire series from start to finish, like Peter Jackson did with LOTR, and Sam Raimi is doing with Spider-Man.

Of course, this pits the X-Men film against Superman Returns in a great Hollywood rivalry, and the story surrounding the circumstances of the production would probably make a great documentary for a novice filmmaker looking to make his way into Sundance.

Hint hint...