X-MEN: THE LAST STAND - A Bullet Point Review

In honour of the release of X-Men: The Last Stand, I am republishing an earlier review of X-2 which pretty much sums up all my feelings on all three X-Men films. This trilogy has definitely been one of my favourites, in terms of comic book adaptations, and the last installment is a disappointing, but nevertheless worthy finale to the series. My specific thoughts on The Last Stand are contained in the following bullet point commentary, followed by my original review of X-2.

*The Last Stand introduces some classic characters from the X-Men mythology including Beast (played extremely well by Kelsey Grammar, in a brilliant casting move), Angel and Juggernaut – all of which are a welcome sight. We also get to see a little more of the characters that we only get a glimpse of in the early installments – characters like Colossus and Kitty Pryde. Unfortunately, we still don’t get to see much of them and what they can do; the problem being that there are so many great characters in the X-Men saga that it’s hard to give all of them the attention they deserve. Still, a glimpse is better than nothing.

*Most of the characters that were in the forefront in the previous films are back in fine form, including Magneto, Professor X and of course Wolverine, who continues to be the best realized and most charismatic character in the series. But sadly (and ironically), Nightcrawler has mysteriously disappeared which is unfortunate because he was a real scene stealer in X-2.

*The plot of X: Men III is quite compelling and not for one instant was I bored, as the story had me guessing on what would happen next. But unfortunately, the script is tainted with a feeling of urgency to wrap things up and so major characters and plot developments don’t really get the kind of screen time they deserve. So while there's a feeling of closure to this filmic adaptation of the X-Men story, it’s undermined by a sense of dissatisfaction as the series failed to really explore and develop the characters and their stories as much as it could have and should have.

*There’s finally a danger room scene which was bewilderingly absent from the first and second installments. This is something that boggled my mind from the very beginning because after all, a big budget X-Men Movie without a danger room scene is like…

*The special effects are spectacular, especially a scene involving the Golden Gate Bridge, but the action sequences themselves are not quite as well directed and choreographed as in the previous two films. One of the major strengths of the first two installments is how well director Bryan Singer was able to translate their powers well to the big screen and choreograph action sequences that were compelling and easy to follow. The action sequences in The Last Stand are not quite at the same level as many of them are overshadowed by a kind of murkiness, making it difficult to follow the action and thus making the sequences less spectacular and compelling.

The Bottom Line: X-Men: The Last Stand brings the story of the X-Men to an end which is not completely satisfying. There is a sense of closure but there’s also a sense of dissatisfaction as there is so much that didn’t get explored. The Last Stand may not be quite as good as the second, but it is on par with the first, and all in all, not a bad way to end the series.

On The Rickter-Scale, X-Men: The Last Stand rates a 6.0 out of 10.

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform

X-2 AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE COMIC BOOK: An X-Tended Review

The evolution of comic book stories to the medium of film was inevitable given that it was simply a matter of time before the technology was at a point where it could convincingly adapt such adventures to the cinema. Many of these tales have already earned the status of modern mythology; and many of the characters have become cultural icons in their own right. Figures such as Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and the Hulk have become as much apart of pop culture lore as many of our most celebrated public figures.

For years now, these characters have been yearning to break into big budget, feature film territory. Having had their genesis in comic books, they have since ventured into the realm of animated and live action television as well as low budget feature films. But now the era of the big budget, heavy effects laden, superhero motion picture is here; and I, for one, welcome it. Having grown up with these characters, and having outgrown comic books, I was yearning to see their stories told on the big screen - as was Hollywood. Having exhausted nearly all other sources of story ideas, including television adaptations and classic feature film re-makes; comic book adventures represent a virtually untapped gold mine to the film industry. 2002’s Spider-Man, which grossed over 400 million dollars domestically, proved them right and guaranteed there would be more to come. Now comic book adventures are no longer solely the indulgence of the social recluse.

Superman: The Movie (1978) was really the advent of this phenomenon, and still the very best one in my opinion, which is ironic, because as an avid comic book reader, I never really cared for the character. But the Superman movie was a near perfect adaptation of the Kryptonian’s story to film - thanks to great characterizations by Christopher Reeves, Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman, along with extraordinary special effects and a well-conceived, well-written story. The film was a commercial and critical success, which spawned three sequels throughout the early eighties.

Then years later, came a slew of other big budget adaptations including Tim Burton’s Batman (1989), Warren Beatty’s Dick Tracy (1990); and more recently Bryan Singer’s X-Men (2000), Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (2002), Mark Steve Johnson’s Daredevil (2003), and the yet to be released film adaptation of The Hulk from director Ang Lee of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon fame.

The appeal of comic book adventures to Hollywood is as clear as the green on the Hulk’s skin. But what is the appeal of comic books to us? I think there are several factors at work here. For one, comic book characters allow us to vicariously break free of the physical limitations we live with everyday. All of us are restricted by the laws of physics and nature on a perpetual basis. When we are presented with a person who is able to bend or break those laws, that character has an instant appeal to us. When he or she breaks free of those limitations, so do we.

Secondly, we are a celebrity obsessed – one that worships and idolizes characters that are ‘larger-than-life.’ And you don’t get any more ‘larger-than-life’ than beings that possess extraordinary powers, walking around in elaborate costumes, drawing attention to them wherever they go. Since most of us live ordinary, mundane lives, with nothing special to draw attention to those lives, these characters allow us to break free of the banality of our existence vicariously through their fame and status. In other words, superhero and celebrity worship represents a kind of placebo antidote to our feelings of inadequacy and our desire to be more than what we are. In addition to this, superhero adventures allow those of us who feel weak and powerless against the forces that shape our lives, to feel powerful and in control of our own destinies (even if only for a brief period of time).

Third, I think that comic book adventures represent the timeless battle between good and evil in a way that is far more engaging and exhilarating to us than the unspectacular, unglamourous battles between good and evil we live with everyday.

And finally, I think comic book adventures simply provide good old fashion escapism – a very worthy, valid and underrated benefit of the movies. Who doesn’t like to escape the reality of our lives every now and then by retreating into a wholesome fantasy, into a world full of wonder and excitement, a world not plagued with all the problems we live with every day? It’s not only appealing, it’s healthy.

The genius of Stan Lee, the creator of Marvel Comics, is that not only did he create characters that are ‘larger-than-life’, but he made these characters even more identifiable by representing them as flawed beings - showcasing their weaknesses as much as their strengths. This also has inherent appeal because we love to see those with power, fame and status (those who seem to be better off than we are) struggle with the same kinds of things we do. In other words, Stan Lee created flawed ‘gods’ that we could sympathize and identify with. So while Spider-Man was off saving the world, he was also struggling with financial problems, relationship issues and dysfunctional family dynamics. And so Spider-Man, like many of Marvel Comics’ heroes, represents a different breed of less-than-perfect superheroes struggling with life’s difficulties as any average person would.

With the conception of the X-Men, Stan Lee takes this to an even greater level by making these characters and their struggle a brilliant allegory for prejudice in our time. For not only did these heroes experience the everyday problems that most of us do, but they also experience the struggles of minorities in our world – the struggle of being feared and hated because you are different. Thus, in the comic book world, these heroes are not idolized like Superman and Iron-Man; these heroes are hated and feared because they are mutants, a new breed of humans who are born with superpowers. This is the simple and ingenious premise of the X-Men story. Eventually it fell to Bryan Singer, of Usual Suspects fame, to bring this innovative and compelling comic book idea to the big screen. In 2000 he gave us the first installment which was met with modest success. And now, three years later, he releases its highly anticipated sequel.

In my original review I praised X-Men (2000) for being a worthy adaptation of the comic book, but I had some serious misgivings about the casting. This I would have to say is the same with the second installment. Bryan Singer does such a perfect job of striking just the right note with his vision of the X-Men saga that it’s really frustrating he falls short with the characterizations. But this review is really a case of cinematic deja vu, as the same strengths and weaknesses of the first film spill over into the second.

Nevertheless, Singer succeeds the second time around by overcoming one of the most difficult challenges comic book adaptations face – bridging the gap between our world and the world of the superhero. He does this by bringing these characters more or less into the context of our existence, which gives the film a heightened sense of realism. Thus the reality we live in and experience is represented on screen and gets to react to these characters in much the same way our reality might. In other words, we experience these characters in our world, rather than being taken into their world to experience them. This I think is the key and the right approach to comic book adaptations. It’s one thing to adapt the comic book to the big screen, but it’s another thing, entirely, to adapt the comic book to our reality. This is one of the things that made Superman: The Movie work so well, as the real strength of the film is that it adapted the character of Superman not only to the cinema, but also to our reality. This approach makes a world of difference as we get to experience the character as if he or she was suddenly introduced into our reality. It’s simply more interesting when these characters are placed in the realism of our existence and the realism of our existence gets to react to the fantastical elements of these characters and their stories. By placing the X-Men into the context of our own modern day experience, it gives the film adaptation an air of plausibility.

In addition, Singer does an excellent job of adapting the expression of the characters’ superpowers to the big screen. In the comics, the heroes’ powers have a much different energy and feel than they would on the big screen. Singer, by restraining and limiting their superhuman abilities on film, gives them a kind of understated power. So every time they use these powers, it’s that much more exciting.

Singer also directs and choreographs the action sequences with great success. He really knows how to build the action into the story and make the action support the story, rather than making the story support the action. He also charges the action sequences with a slick kind of energy that makes them quite engaging and exciting. In addition, it’s refreshing to see a movie where over the top action sequences are given the proper context to suspend our disbelief.

Despite the formidable strengths of both the first X-Men and the sequel, Singer commits one crucial error that makes both X-Men films less than what they could and should be. In fact, as stated earlier, it’s really frustrating because he comes very close to having a near perfect adaptation. Unfortunately, Singer makes a serious miscalculation with regards to the casting and the characterizations of some of the lead players – most notably Storm, Cyclops and Rogue. And to be fair to Singer, it would have been hard for him to correct this mistake the second time around because it’s really an extension of the mistake he made in the first installment.

Halle Berry is an amazing actress with considerable range and awesome screen presence. She absolutely deserved the Oscar for Monter’s Ball and she’s one of the most stunning women ever put on film, but she’s simply not Storm material. It has nothing to do with her acting – it’s simply that certain actors are not right for certain roles. I still think Angela Bassett would have made the perfect Storm. Halle Berry’s look and temperament are simply not right for that character. She’s just a little too mild mannered to effectively play the part. The Storm of the comics is more aggressive and has real presence within the group. This is the same situation with Cyclops. He may not be the most popular character, but he too is a formidable presence within the group. After all, he is second in command of the X-Men and he has enough of a forceful personality to make the tensions between him and the Wolverine character much more compelling than what we've seen so far in both X-Men movies. And as for Rogue, Singer completely misses the boat with her character. The Rogue of the comics is also a very aggressive person, almost like a female version of Wolverine. In addition, she's very forward and expressive with regards to her sexuality. In contrast, Anna Paquin’s timid Rogue seems like a completely different character altogether. Maybe these actors will eventually grow into their respective roles in a more satisfactory way, but right now they seem much more like supporting, fringe members of the group rather than lead members.

But to his credit, Singer gets most of the other characters right. Magneto, Mystique, Professor X, Jean Grey and particularly Nightcrawler and Wolverine are well-realized incarnations of their respective characters. In fact, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is really the star of the show. Jackman is not an actor that would have immediately come to mind to play that role, but he far exceeds my expectations and does an awesome job as Wolverine. Every moment he’s on screen is electrifying, and he has such great chemistry with Famke Janssen that you’d much rather see the two of them together rather than see the James Marsden characterization of Cyclops with Jean Grey. In fact, so good is his characterization of Wolverine that most of the other characters feel kind of flat and lifeless in comparison.

So what’s the bottom line? X-2 is a worthy sequel to X-Men. Director Bryan Singer does a remarkable job of placing these characters into the context of our modern world experience and of adapting their story to film. He also strikes just the right note for this cinematic vision of the outcast superheroes. In addition, he does an amazing job of translating their powers to the big screen and of choreographing the action sequences. He also has the proper insight to sprinkle a sly bit of wit throughout both the first and the second installments – although more so in the second.

In addition, X-2 takes us deeper into the X-Men mythology as the mystery of Wolverine’s past unravels further and new characters are introduced to us, most notably Pyro and Nightcrawler. Nightcrawler is played extremely well by Alan Cumming and a very welcome addition to the group. His solo action sequence that opens the film is truly exhilarating and one of the high points of the sequel. But again, the same problems with characterization and casting that plagued the first one also plague the second – to the extent that some of the group dynamics of this superhero team don’t play out nearly as well as they should. In comparison, the animated series that ran from the early nineties to the late nineties had much better characterizations. But all in all, X-2 is a very fun time at the movies. It’s better than the first one and a great initiation into the summer movie season.

Rating: X-2 (7.0/B+) X-Men (6.5/B)

AMERICAN IDOL PREDICTIONS & HEARTACHES

It's been a tough couple of weeks. First, one of my all time favourite shows, the grossly underrated Malcolm in the Middle, had its series finale with such little fan fare that I almost missed it completely. However, fate intervened and I was able to catch it in the nick of time, and true to form, I was not disappointed; as the show ended it's hilarious 7 season run on a high note with a brilliant exit from network television. It will be sorely missed.

But even before that bittersweet event, Chris Daughtry, one of the four American Idol finalists, and my personal favourite, inexplicably gets cut from the competition proving once again that the public is clueless when it comes to choosing an American Idol. The incident was so devastating, I almost boycotted the remaining episodes. It reminded me of last year's heart breaking season finale, when Bo Bice inexplicably lost to Carrie Underwood. Chris has been one of the hardest workers in the competition, he has consistently received the best reviews from the judges, he's got amazing stage presence and charisma, and he's an awesome vocalist. Sure, the Elvis themed show was not one of his finest hours (only because he didn't choose the right songs), but still, out of all the final four, he was the most deserving of another chance. Nevertheless, I have recovered from Daughtry's unjust departure. My heart has healed and I know it will go on. Besides, how upset can I get over a show that's essentially a guilty pleasure?

Before Elliott got eliminated, I wasn't quite sure who to root for. I like Taylor alot, he's a unique talent with a great soulful voice, but I don't think he's lived up to his potential during the competition. More often than not, he tends to choose the wrong songs - songs that don't really showcase his vocal abilities, earmarked by performances that are far too karaoke-esque. In fact, throughout the contest, he's focused far too much on the performance to the detrement of the vocals. True, it's fun to watch someone who enjoys performing so much that he looks like he's on crack each time he steps out on stage, but all that mania gets stale very quickly when the vocals aren't there to sustain your attention. Plus I'm annoyed that he might win simply because everyone likes him so much, when there are contestants who have worked much harder and who deserve to go farther as a result. It wouldn't bother me if Taylor blew me away everytime, but he's had more misses than hits.

With regards to Elliott, here we have someone who doesn't strike you as an American Idol at first glance, but who, nevertheless, is one of the most authentic, down to earth and likeable contestants the show has ever had. Not to mention that he too has has worked his butt off throughout the competition, showing the most improvement over this season's run. Unfortunately, Elliott's style, no matter how cool, is not one that connects well with a mainstream audience.

As for Katharine, let's just say I haven't caught the McPheever and I don't plan to any time soon. She has a good voice and she did do a great job with her rendition of Over the Rainbow, but something about her bothers me. I think it might be that under all that cutesieness, she's much more of a diva than she's letting on. Not to mention that I find it extremely annoying how her father cries everytime she sings and how they're always showing it.

Now that it's down to the final two and now that they've had their final match, I predict that Taylor will win, and not only that, based on last night's performance, he should win. His opening number was a real show stopper and he deserves the American Idol crown for that performance alone. Plus he wisely chose to tone down his manic dance steps and focus on showcasing his great voice and his considerable vocal abilities. Besides, as far as I know, Taylor has never been in the bottom two or three in any of the matches. It's just too bad that once again a deserving rocker got the boot.

UNITED 93

There’s been much talk about whether it’s too soon to make a film about 9/11. But to me, the question isn’t whether it’s too soon; the question is whether it’s really necessary. After all, the memories and images of that historic day are forever burned into our collective consciousness – images so compelling and so disturbing that no film representation could ever come close to their dramatic power. For the events of 9/11 were so enormous, so traumatic and so shocking, that they could not possibly be contained in a 24 hour period, let alone a two hour big screen drama, as 9/11 remains one of the longest days in modern history – a day whose true duration is untold months.

I know some people for whom 9/11 was no more significant than the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City during the mid 90’s. But for me, 9/11 represented a fundamental shift in our reality – a shift of cosmic proportions that sent shock waves throughout the world as Western civilization had its first real taste of the apocalypse, undergoing an eschatological rite of passage. In an instant, everything had changed as the psyche of the industrialized modern world underwent a major transformation. For we will never experience that kind of collective shock again, as we have seen the unimaginable, and so now anything is possible. In fact, the only thing that could have made 9/11 bigger is if it was extra-terrestrial spacecrafts that crashed into the twin towers. Because even after all this time, the events of that day were so staggering and so unthinkable that it’s still easier for my mind to believe that the World Trade Centre buildings never existed than to believe that people actually flew planes into them, causing them to collapse.

And true, there are many tragedies happening throughout the world everyday with much greater loss of life than those of 9/11. But few of these have the same kind of stunning, instantaneous, historical impact as 9/11. For no matter what you think about the foreign policies of the U.S., when there’s an attack of that nature on the most powerful country in the world, there are bound to be consequences of global proportions. Not to mention the fact that unprecedented evil always changes history. World War I was an unprecedented kind of conflict that forever changed the world. The Holocaust was an unprecedented kind of inhumanity that forever changed the world. And not that I’m comparing 9/11 to those infamous tragedies, but the coordinated attacks on the U.S. that day were an unprecedented kind of terrorism that forever changed the world.

So how could the real life drama and trauma of 9/11 ever translate to film in a way that does justice to the unbelievably dark power of that day? Well the executives at Universal have certainly tried and I have to say the result is quite powerful as United 93 is nothing less than a truly noble effort to tell the story of the one hijacked plane on 9/11 that did not hit its target, but crashed in a field just outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Based in large part on phone calls made from the doomed planed that morning, the film recreates the probable events on the air craft as the passengers struggled to regain control of the plane and avert tragedy.

First and foremost, United 93 is in no way exploitative, and except for the fact that it is a movie, there’s nothing remotely commercial about it. There are no big name actors and none of the glitz and glamour that we normally associate with big studio productions. In fact, all the actors in the feature are virtual unknowns and most of them look like everyday people, which only serves to add to the realism of the recreation. In addition, United 93 is tastefully done as the film handles the subject matter with great care and dignity, with no attempts to accentuate the drama with typical Hollywood tricks – tricks that would have undoubtedly cheapened the experience.

Paul Greengrass, the film’s director, wisely chose to employ a minimalist approach, using a documentary shooting style that is a great complement to the film’s content, giving the experience of United 93 an added sense of realism. What’s equally great about his approach is that Greengrass doesn’t identify anyone or give convoluted back-stories of the major players in the drama. Instead, he chooses to let the audience experience the characters as if we too were passengers on the plane that day – we become casual observers who get to know the characters only through glimpses of their mundane activities, conversations and interactions that comprise most of people’s lives. In truth, the film begins much like the actual morning of 9/11/01 itself – a routine day with no hint whatsoever of the unbelievable drama and carnage that lay ahead.

And once the drama begins to unfold, we experience what it would be like to be an ordinary person caught up in extraordinary circumstances, as we get a peek at ourselves in the various reactions of the passengers, making the experience of United 93 extremely visceral and powerful. And in some sense, the passengers of United 93 were worse off than the passengers on the other hijacked planes, because those on the other flights were probably not as aware of the inevitable outcome of their situation as the passengers on United 93 were – passengers who in a very short time had to come to terms with the strong probability of their impending death.

United 93 also gives us a lot of behind the scenes look at the operations of the air traffic controllers and the FAA that day. We see some of the mistakes that were made and we get a greater understanding of how truly unprepared they were for an event of this magnitude. Indeed, no one was remotely equipped to process the idea of a single hijacking, let alone multiple suicidal hijackings. In fact, there’s a point in the film where American Airlines Flight 11 disappears over New York City on their radar system. Shortly afterwards there are news reports of a plane crashing into the north tower of the World Trade Centre. However, the powers that be still can’t put two and two together as they continue to wonder what happened to Flight 11; demonstrating how the idea of a commercial air plane flying into a New York skyscraper was so completely beyond their ability to imagine or process – as it was for most of us.

Despite the artistic success and visceral power of United 93, I still have reservations about whether a narrative film about 9/11 is necessary at this point. Films about the holocaust are necessary because unfortunately there are some who are bent on denying it and because an event that unthinkable becomes harder to believe as time puts greater distance between it and us. I think a documentary film about 9/11 is more in order – one that pieces together all the facts and fills in all the information gaps that traditional media outlets have been unable to; one that clears up all the misinformation, untruths and myths that still surround the event to this day; and one that answers all the unanswered questions that many of us still have about the tragedy. Nevertheless, I have to say that United 93 is a powerful movie going experience, the best so far this year and one that should definitely not be missed.

On The Rickter-Scale United 93 rates an 8.5 out of 10.

THE RICKTER-SCALE:
10 (A+) – extraordinary, a masterpiece
9.5/9.0 (A) – exceptional, a milestone
8.5/8.0 (A-) – excellent, a classic
7.5/7.0 (B+) – very good, a near classic
6.5/6.0 (B) – good
5.5/5.0 (B-) – fair
4.5/4.0 (C+) – poor
3.5/3.0 (C) – very poor, a near disaster
2.5/2.0 (C-) – terrible, a total disaster
1.5/1.0 (D+) – torture, a catastrophe
0.5/0.0 (F) – abysmal, the end of film as an artform