FIRST AWWWWW SHIT
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:29 p.m. CST
I am holding out hope for this one yet!
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:30 p.m. CST
Dark Phoenix? I thought she was good. Granted,I never read the comics but I remember the story arc from the early 90's cartoon. She was a good character.
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:30 p.m. CST
AAAHHH HA HA HA HA HA!!!
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:32 p.m. CST
holy crap! famke is definitely gonna be the best thing about this movie, NO DOUBT! jeez, wait till they do put the special effects on these scenes, it's gonna look amazing! at least i have one thing to look forward to when i see this movie... =( *pleasepleasepleasebegood*
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:41 p.m. CST
I'm actually somewhat excited about this movie after the trailer, but these pics are kinda meh.
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:43 p.m. CST
by Optimus Primal
She needs to reload on the botox. Shes needs about a Quart or so. And perhaps get some Ass Fat injected into those bags under her eyes. Im hoping the Phoenix saga is a subplot rather than the focus of the entire movie. Because quite frankly who gives a shit about Jean Grey? Aside from maybe Jubilee, shes the least interesting of all of the characters in Xmen. Not to mention that Famke Jensen has the acting prowess of a block of wood.
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:46 p.m. CST
But I like that intensity in her face.
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:46 p.m. CST
I think I just wet myself.
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:47 p.m. CST
I must admit, her look is...well...disturbing. Not so sure about the costume, but she will definitely nail the character.
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:51 p.m. CST
that one with Famke yelling... wow.
Jan. 21, 2006, 10:56 p.m. CST
by 3 Bag Enema
Who shaves her what? And *SPOILER* killing off Cyclops and Xavier will work as well as it did in the comics, which is not at all. This franchise has been destroyed by Ratner, Tom Rothman and Fox, and that's inexcusable.
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:13 p.m. CST
okay, so i just read that X3 review.... i had a nervous breakdown after reading the AICN script review, but after reading this review, im about to go kill myself... i know it could be fake, but then again so could've been the AICN review... who knows?!? but if that's what really does happen, i have no problem making comments during the entire movie... i heard enough of them during Sith, but this one will totally deserve it.... Ratner better find himself some secret hideout, cause after this movie he will be getting death threats galore... good job, FOX!!! and i just dont understand how the actors can stand to be in this movie, dont they have any respect for their characters and their careers??? honestly, how can they think the script was even semi-good??? if they had any real brains, they would have done everything in their power to get a real movie made... fox listened to halle berry's demands, what if the entire cast complained and made threats??? idiots.... i hope fox burns to the ground, along with all the X3 footage and tom rothman... bastards... anyone have any idea as to when the X-Men franchise will be revived?? i say 20 years......
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:20 p.m. CST
I'm suprised, 3BE. The Shaving of the Phoenix is widely considered to be one of the greatest story arcs of the silver age of pornography. Just google it.
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:29 p.m. CST
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:42 p.m. CST
by Chief Redcock
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:44 p.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
Any failings of this film is gonna be squarely on FOX, too impatient to let Singer do Superman and come back for this film (which he had said he would have been more than happy to do) they rushed this into development, they had their release date insisted on before they had a script or director. Can't imagine good results coming from something so rushed, but I'm no expert, and I'm guessing no matter what this film is gonna be succesful enough for FOX to pat themselves on the back, even if it ends up sucking.
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:47 p.m. CST
I love how her sweater and her weird "dress" get-up are the exact same colors. I guess ever since her Phoenix powers manifested themselves she only prefers maroon.
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:49 p.m. CST
...I do like the intensity of that last shot.
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:51 p.m. CST
by 3 Bag Enema
I'm guessing you mean it's not a sufficient spoiler warning when it's in the same sentence as the spoiler. I'm also guessing that you have never once spoken to anyone like that in person.
Jan. 21, 2006, 11:57 p.m. CST
by 3 Bag Enema
In nine years we'll be lining up for X-Men Begin. Schuratner be damned.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:13 a.m. CST
what a bunch of comicbook nazis over there, ordering people to be quiet and telling them what they can and can't discuss, like some sort of Orwellian geek-state. "there shall be no more discussing of the X3 review! the review does not exist, because we say it doesn't. just look at these 3 pictures and discuss only what can be seen in them, nothing more. you may not ask where they came from, how they came to be here, or who is responsible for them being here. Big Brother is watching you" fucking A, i still can't get over how hyper-sensitive they are there to anything that might disturb the herd. Harry and Co may look down on the tb's, and at times i wonder if its worth posting here and expecting a response worth reading, but i'll take dealing with a few nutjob cranks over being told what i can and can't talk about any fucking day of the week.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:14 a.m. CST
What the hell is happening here?
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:16 a.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
So crazy nazi about their rules that they scared Aaron Sorkin off of them (and into writing an episode of West Wing making fun of them).
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:27 a.m. CST
what the hell makes comic fans think that comics are any more sacred than so many well respected pieces of literature that have been changed while being adapted to the big screen? and get over the knee-jerk anti-Ratner shit too, it was old a long time ago. as if Singer adhered strictly to comic canon when he made X1 and X2. i swear, at times it seems as if hardcore comic fans aren't happy unless they have something to be unhappy about. if X3 ends up kicking Superman Returns ass at the box office, which by the looks of the Superman Returns stuff being released wouldn't surprise me, i am going to laugh my ass off. i wonder how many great directors broke down and latched onto one of the lead actors like a child clutching their mother during a shoot.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:32 a.m. CST
...you're showing your bias. 'Superman Returns' is getting the shit kicked out of it in the TalkBacks too, no need to have a conniption and blast it in an 'X3' TalkBack just because you don't like anti-Ratner fanboys.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:41 a.m. CST
Although I'm not a fan of Ratner, and more than slightly nervous about the final result with this film, I'm more than willing to wait patiently and judge once it arrives. Then we have this jack-off reviewer that took a break from his doll-populated tea parties and typed a LENGTHY bullshit review, no doubt from his grandmother's basement, obviously based on released pictures and AICN's own script review. Beyond that, it is simply ill-informed, made clear when the 'writer' finds it a disappointing conclusion to the trilogy. Since Vinnie Jones has made it public that he signed on for X-Men 4 and 5, clearly Fox has no intention of closing the door on their lucrative franchise. What this reviewer and all similar fans that cannot draw a breath without cursing Ratner's name and predicting the disaster of a film X3 supposedly will be seem to realize is that its in their best interest for this film to at least do decently. If, as the reviewer said he was, you are such an enormous fan of the previous X-Men flicks, don't set out to sabatoge this one, no matter how great your hatred for Ratner is. Wait 'til its out, go see it, judge it then, and then sit back. If we're all really lucky it'll do well enough in the boxoffice to warrant another sequel, perhaps with a new director at the helm, and then we get to experience a potentially better take on the franchise. Look at the difference between the first two Harry Potter films and the third. A skilled director makes the difference, and if a franchise is making money, we'll be seeing more of it. So thats my lengthy rant on why this fake reviewer should kiss my fat dog's hairy ass. Cheers.
Anybody else finding that "review" inaccessible? Anybody got the text and can place it elsewhere? Please? I'm curious.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:51 a.m. CST
by The Guy Who Nods
I thought this had something to do with Joaquin Phoenix's mugshot after an allnight bender or something.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:58 a.m. CST
seriously dude, i have no bias in regard to Singer or Ratner, and dug both X1 & X2, along with Superman I & II. the bias being shown here isn't from me, its from people who are bias against Ratner and FOR Singer, even before they see X3. people are trashing Ratner for doing the same kind of things they give Singer a free pass for. fact is Singer did NOT adhere to the comics as strictly as people are expecting from Ratner. the very same things the anti-Ratner/pro-Singer people are accusing Ratner of doing in X3, Singer is doing with Superman Returns, only the line their is, "its Brian Singer, even if he changes things it will be good because he cares about it". thats just crap. judge both equally on the same standards, when the movies have been released. i happen to think the trailer and pics for X3 look better than the material released so far from Superman Returns, but i will actually go see BOTH and make up my mind then just who is a hack or not in regard to these two movies. i am hoping, and i am open to the possibility, that both will be good. can the anti-Ratner crowd say the same?
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:06 a.m. CST
which is used to aribitrarily excuse anything Singer did which wasn't in the comics, but can then be easily ignored as people demonize Ratner for making changes because only someone who doesn't care about the comic would change things, right? if you're going to say Ratner sucks for making changes, you can't give Singer a free ride for doing the same, not without looking like a tool anyway.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:09 a.m. CST
1) 'Superman Returns' is not based, not even loosely, on any comic book story in the Superman canon. 2) What are these changes that you're talking about? You keep citing them but I don't really see many people complaining about the "changes" that Ratner's making, and I check most of these things. I'll go back up and see if I can figure out what you mean there. 3) Yes, no one has seen 'X-Men 3' yet, that is correct. But they have seen 'Rush Hours 1 & 2' and 'After the Sunset.' I am aware that Ratner directed a little movie for Universal called 'Red Dragon,' but in my opinion that was just "okay" and (Hey! Like X-Men!) he already had a template to work with thanks to Jonathan Demme. Personally if it ends up as good as 'Red Dragon' I'll be reasonably satisfied, although I'm more concerned about the script here than I was for that one. Also, 4) bias or not, character defamation of Singer (the whole crying like a baby thing) is kind of a cheap shot.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:11 a.m. CST
... but that was a What If - she also destroys the whole universe. What If was always fun as they could freely kill off anyone they wanted - again and again and again ...
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:12 a.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
Because he still made two good movies, nothing arbitrary about that. While those movies were in development people were still screaming about this or that thing.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:34 a.m. CST
...good guys die in movies all the time. It just has to be handled the right way. And 'The Matrix: Convolutions' had plenty of other problems. By the way, I think you have your title's mixed up. The title is 'The Matrix: Evolution' there pal.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:41 a.m. CST
ok, how does recounting a photo that is posted on superherohype count as defamation of character? i didn't take the photo, i didn't make Singer clutch onto Spacey like that either. and come on, all i have read is how terible Ratner is for changing Dark Pheonix, for killing off characters that shouldn't be killed off because thats not what happens in the comics, etc. Singer has said that Superman Returns is a sequel to Superman II, but chooses a storyline which directly contradicts what we were left with at the end of Superman II, when Superman pledges to BE THERE for humanity and NOT ditch out again. it wasn't some little throw-away line either. now Singer wants to start Superman Returns with the premise that after Superman made that pledge, he DID ditch out on humanity. talk about not "staying true to the spirit" of the character of Superman. i mean, isn't this supposed to be the Mr Clean of superheroes; doesn't lie or cheat and keeps his word and all that good stuff? now, i am actually pretty forgiving of stuff like that, because i WANT to like as many movies as posible, i go out of my way to try to like a movie. but when there is a side by side example of two directors doing the same kind of thing, except one is getting praise for it while the other is geting raked over the coals, i can't help but get irritated by the dishonesty of it all. and fyi, a lot of people really liked Rush Hour I, and Red Dragon was a very competently directed movie as well.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:42 a.m. CST
Every single link in this article is now dead.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:46 a.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:57 a.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
People complaining about Ratner aren't really complaining about how he changes the comic, much less raking him over the coals for it. Anyways, I think you're being pretty selective as well if you're actually maintaining Singer is being "praised" for changes to Superman while Ratner is being raked over the coals for similar changes, cause I've heard that Superman II complaint a thousand times, plus a ton of other people bitching about Singer changes (the S is too small, the cape is brown, the actors are too young), I rarely read much on these talkbacks about what Ratner is changing (this talkback is actually the first I've read of people making this particular complaint, though can't say I can keep up with these talkbacks that well).
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:58 a.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
and The Matrix: Revolutions.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:03 a.m. CST
I never accused you of making the incident up, although this photo of which you speak is one I haven't seen. Maybe I'm using the term "character defamation" incorrectly, but when comparing the quality of 'Superman Returns' to the quality of 'X-Men 3' (itself a pretty hard task considering the paucity of material we have for either, I might add), talking about Singer crying "like a child" has nothing to do with anything. It's just a slam against... how the guy behaves, I guess. Like I said, you're letting these remarks against Ratner get to you more than they should. Who cares if people complain about whether or not characters should be killed? Do you honestly think Ratner had a hand in that? Because I don't. Just ignore the people who blame the director for everything and move on.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:05 a.m. CST
Yeah, I know, it was a bad joke. He called 'Underworld: Evolution' "Underworld: Revolutions" and I thought it would be funny if I accused him of flubbing the wrong title. A lot less funny than I thought it would be, in retrospect :-P.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:08 a.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:22 a.m. CST
seriously, i have to wonder how well a director is handling the pressure and stress of making such a big movie when a photo is released of him that is like the one of Singer clutching Spacey that is up over at supernaziherohype,com. it is taken on a set and looks as if he is having some sort of emotional overload, tightly clinging to Spacey, with his eyes squeezed shut, while Spacey looks just a tad uncomfortable if you ask me. maybe the pressure is getting to him for such a public display? i think thats a reasonable supposition. and yes, i plead guilty to the use of....potentially inflammatory language at times here, but such is the freedom of the tb's, lol. still, you have NEVER seen me make any lame 3rd grade gay jokes about Singer, Superman, or any other person, character, or movie in any tb.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:31 a.m. CST
...I hear ya, but I gotta say, an out-of-context snapshot where Singer may or may not have been having himself a cry is a pretty flimsy pretext for thinking his movie is gonna suck.
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:53 a.m. CST
by 3 Bag Enema
"if X3 ends up kicking Superman Returns ass at the box office, which by the looks of the Superman Returns stuff being released wouldn't surprise me, i am going to laugh my ass off." The fact that you give a shit which one makes more money tells me a lot about you. "Singer has said that Superman Returns is a sequel to Superman II, but chooses a storyline which directly contradicts what we were left with at the end of Superman II, when Superman pledges to BE THERE for humanity and NOT ditch out again. it wasn't some little throw-away line either. now Singer wants to start Superman Returns with the premise that after Superman made that pledge, he DID ditch out on humanity. talk about not "staying true to the spirit" of the character of Superman." Okay... but didn't you start out complaining about people who are pissy about continuity? So, wouldn't that complaint make you one of them? It seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Or because of a predominant personaliy disorder. Fox has completely fucked up this franchise, hiring a hack director, writing a script in six days, and rushing to get the production done, all because they strung Singer along for an entire year after the success of X2 and were pissed when he left for people who appreciated him. They trashed this franchise, and are rushing to get it out before Superman Returns rather than taking time to get it right just to get it out before Singer's movie. Now, you can say that this film still could be good. However, if it's a good picture, it's a miracle. I don't give a shit if it makes money or not. All indications are that it will be nothing close in terms of intelligence or quality what fans of X2 would be expecting, and the reasons for that could easily have been prevented but for the hubris of slimey executives. The kind who depend on the ignorance or people like you to defend their decisions.
Jan. 22, 2006, 4:13 a.m. CST
This might turn out X-fans. Then your gonna have to eat it, and then suck it. Or it might not. This movie could defy a lot of expectations. I hope it does.
Jan. 22, 2006, 4:17 a.m. CST
I was tired and very willing(?), but after reading this talkback, I have enough energy to down one more glass of Stella Artois.
Jan. 22, 2006, 4:39 a.m. CST
The fanboy drones will flock to this film, as will the general public. They had no motivation to make a good film and it is clear they didn't. I'll be downloading this one and probably fast forwarding through it while the rest of you pay to see it and ensure that future piece-of-shit films get made.
Jan. 22, 2006, 4:47 a.m. CST
If it's fake, they at least tried to sell it by making shit up. I'm pretty sure Rogue didn't really wear a costume in 'X2', and if this cat could actually spot what kind of "boots" she was sporting in the Oval Office denouement, he has a different cut of the film than I do.
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:03 a.m. CST
As Singer himself said, its loosely a sequel. Based loosely on the events of the first movie. Apparently we're going to get an explanation for that in the movie itself.
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:04 a.m. CST
Could you write any more about Anna Paquin's fricking hair? Comicbook Wolvie sounds cool, too, more yellow spandex, less kinky black leather(!)
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:04 a.m. CST
First TWO movies I meant.
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:32 a.m. CST
Seems to me like another case of a bloated and past-its-prime third entry into a franchise. Frankly, I wrote this mutha off when I heard the Super-Exciting-News that LordoftheRatsner was gonna direct...also Mori's script review didn't help. But then again, X-Men 2 was brilliant so maybe I might just be surpri--- DIE INNER ETERNALLY OPTIMISTIC FANBOY DIE DIE!!! Ahem, where was I, oh yeah- X-Men 3 will suck giant donkey balls.
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:33 a.m. CST
The fact that someone spent that long writing a bullshit review is amazing and a little sad. If you break down the review, the movie would be 27 hours long. (Just list everyone who has 'a lot of backstory' or 'a lot of good moments'.) The review dives in and out of spoilers without actually telling a single thing about the plot that we don't know. Bah, humbug, let's get a real review in ASAP and find out just what a stinker this is going to be. (Phoenix killing Cyclops, Xavier, and Magneto = teh suck.)
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:42 a.m. CST
... everybody's fear has come true. X3 will blow and suck at the same time.
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:05 a.m. CST
Hahahahahahahahahahaha I'm soooooooooooo funny aren't I. No? Oh well then nevermind. Ark at her!
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:06 a.m. CST
What a cretin. I stopped reading there.
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:16 a.m. CST
Looks like The Zone is down..... Well, I'm still not convinced by this review that the movie is shit. He says there are too many comic book references - but we all wanted that, didn't we? I did, at least. I think this one may divide hardcore geeks and casual moviegoers who enjoyed the first 2 movies.
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:17 a.m. CST
Remember, at this one I'm on the nay-sayer-side and I don't expect X3 to be as good as the first two, but this review was too obviously written by a hater.
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:22 a.m. CST
by 3 Bag Enema
Your superiority defeates our enthusiasm. Every time! You are so superior. Now tell me you want the cock. No, say, you want the cock "Daddy." Now suck your thumb while you push your cheek against the hard cock straining against the slacks I borrowed from your Dad after I fucked your mom last night. Oh yes.
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:24 a.m. CST
I agree TITG, while the original script review and Ratner make me nervous this article seems like a bad atempt and discrediting the film by someone with an axe to grind. Ah well we will see soon enough.
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:28 a.m. CST
I doubt the movie is going to be great, but this reads like an angry 13 year old boy wrote it. It sounds so much like he's trying to be cool and 'hate the movie like all the popular kids.'
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:36 a.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
Though on the other hand, like the pictures, the original site that had posted the review has since removed it (hence its posting here), so hmmmm.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:02 a.m. CST
but I kinda get the impression he's trying to slow his career down a little in these twilight years of his. Either way I hope he finds himself a nice young man to keep him warm at night, in case he's reading this I'm just informing him that Tom Cruise is going to be looking for a slice of mano-a-mano man-love on-the-side now that he's partaking upon that "mutually beneficial" marriage with that Holmes chick. Maybe you two should hook up? Remember not to bring your publicist with you though, Cruise has a reputation to upstand. ---This bit of gossip has been brought to you courtesy of Chinese Whispers magazine, you know our policy: if ya got photos to back it up we'll print it. And if ya don't we'll print it anyway.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:16 a.m. CST
..I was breaking out into cold sweats there! You said it right, man - the review felt like an attempt to discredit the movie. The jury is most definitely still out!
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:28 a.m. CST
by jasper Stillwell
No real suprises here is there? Ratner, not a director of particular intensity, vision or great emotional depth, is given the most 'emotional', possibly resonant and certainly complex episode of the series. Nice. Good work. Director then gives in to star-pressure and gives Halle Berry more on-screen time in a pointless romance storyline. (Lets name it and say that, yes, the Oscar was a fluke and everything she has done before and since then has been strictly amateur-hour -If you have to capitulate to the star in this way why no 'Ororo's-early-days-in-Africa' back story? That'd be much cooler surely and then it wouldn't profoundly piss around too much with narrative-changing continuity?) Its a shame though as it does sound like there is no way back from all of this. Xavier I guess could appear in flashbacks (always wanted to see a two-header set 20 years earlier with McKellen and pre-wheelchair-Stewart thrashing out the political dimensions and direction of the nascent X-Men in a bar in Morroco just like the comics...that's still possible I guess...)and Cyclops was never really given any depth or explored in any credible way. Partially because of miscasting I suspect (Marsden was always too clean cut, less grim and commanding) and partially due to having too many (on the surface more interesting) characters to marshall. The tragic side of Summers being left untouched would have added a deal of pathos to his impending doom at the hands of Jean. Again another missed opportunity. The great thing about this series so far has been a sense of emotionality and of humanising what could very easily have been just another comic book story. Will there be a sequence that gets my heart racing like Wolverine defending the school from the special Ops guys in X2? Will there be scene with the power of Xavier helpless and captured by Stryker, presented with the failure of Jason/Mastermind? Will there be anything other than 'cool' FX and 'set pieces' of broad action that will date faster than yesterdays newspapers? There is too much wastage here and sadly little thought for where this goes next. Perhaps Wolverine and Storm will lead the rag-tag X-Men in a Days of Future Past-style battle with the Sentinels in X4? And then maybe we'll get a time travel scenario which will render all of this film 'just a horrible dream' - if Ratner's in charge I wouldn't put it past him...and lets face it if this film does OK then we're not going to be able to prize him out of this franchise. Ratner on the X-Men, Story on FF, Hulk floundering over a computer-game-led direction that focusses just on dumb-ass action...Marvel your time is up.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:29 a.m. CST
He talks big for a guy who hasnt seen either of those flicks...obviously a plant.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:40 a.m. CST
Arrrgh. I hope it's fake. And why couldn't they kill off Halle instead of Patrick Stewart?
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:55 a.m. CST
You just know that it's right. They should have told Halle Berry to fuck off rather than give her screentime that she doesn't deserve. There's too much going on already without having to pointlessly focus on Storm. The franchise is already big enough for them to not need 'Oscar winner' Halle for the promotion. If it isn't better than the first movie then this is officially a pointless project.
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:09 a.m. CST
Zone's down, anyone know what happened? Congregate in http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=866 just like the old days!
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:17 a.m. CST
I hope that most of this "review" is wrong. If so, then they should not have had Berry be in the movie at all. Replacing her would not have been bad. Also, the killing off of Xavier and Cyclops, if true, is not a good start. I hope that their deaths are faked for some crazy reason. Too many characters are in the movie. I know that many are going to have little to do. Favorites are going to have small roles. That happens. They should have saved Juggy for a fourth movie. Hell, maybe they should have saved Magneto for the next movie. Just focus on Phoenix fighting the X-Men. Everyone could have had something for this movie. But I guess I am a dreamer. I really want this movie to do well but it really isn't leaning that way. :(
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:36 a.m. CST
Look at the teaser, I still say theres a Sentinnel in there. Wolvie is tossed upwards towards a purplish light. 3 laser bolts fly past Storm. I'm telling you, the movie may suck, but they are hiding something. Hopefully, in a few weeks, if we get a new trailer at the Super Bowl (Broncos vs. Panthers) they'll give us a few more shots so I can back up my crackpot theory.
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:47 a.m. CST
I thought Joaquin Phoenix was going to star in a movie about WV coal miners or something.
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:16 a.m. CST
Magneto is my favorite character in the XMEN. I think his "by any means necessary" tactics and worldview make perfect sense. In addition, the pic has that kind of "devil at your shoulder" appeal; "kill them Phoenix, it is your destiny" kind of thing. It will be nice if the film lives up to the message of what it takes to fight against racism, intolerance and ignorance. Sometimes that means diplomacy, other times it means killing everyone in sight. Heres to hope.
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:49 a.m. CST
I have no problem with a comic book movie not following the continuity of its source material. I think the two are entirely separate entities, and the main concern of the filmmakers involved should be in just telling a good story. Someone made a great point about "What If" and "Elseworld" titles. They both do not adhere to continuity but the characters are still recognizable and the stories are often more entertaining than the original storylines on which they are based. I have a completely open mind about X3 and hope that Brett Ratner pulls it off. Either way, I suspect it will still make a shirtload of money. As for the pics of Famke Janssen, she just seems to get more beautiful as the years go by. I suppose it's true what they say about women "peaking" after 40, and the comparisons to wine getting better with age. It's just a shame that Bryan Singer and the people behind the new Superman movie couldn't grasp that fact when it came time to casting Lois Lane. What a hot "MILF" she could have been (Jamie Gertz anyone?). ;)
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:57 a.m. CST
I don't know whats up either, but I'm frightened... maybe its just down for maintenance? I hope it aint gone...
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:58 a.m. CST
Bryan Singer is an overrated director who couldn't film an action sequence if his life depended on it. Not to mention all the liberties he also took with the X-Men continuity so shut your traps and get off Ratner's balls. They both suck equally and the X-Men series isn't all that great and X3 will be more of the same.
Jan. 22, 2006, 10:06 a.m. CST
by Big Bad Clone
No chemistry between Halle and Jackman? No shit. And not because of Jackman gay rumors. I mean, who has Halle ever had onscreen chemistry with? With Martin Landau in BAPS?
Jan. 22, 2006, 10:17 a.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST
Wow, great Spoiler warning, now I don't even have to see it. It's like cliff notes YOU FUCKER.
Jan. 22, 2006, 10:34 a.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
Oh, wrong Pheonix.
Jan. 22, 2006, 10:36 a.m. CST
i dunno how long its been down, but at least since this morning for me. i just logged on about an hour ago and *poof* she no there...
Jan. 22, 2006, 10:50 a.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
Red Dragon, while the most unecessary remake since Kong, was shot pretty well. Rush Hour, while the most uneccessary interracial cop buddy movie since Collision Course (look it up), had some solid action scenes. What did Singer have on his resume before X-Men? Usual Suspects, Apt Pupil. Nice cinematography but not heavy in the action dept. He still did reasonably well, especially given the limited budget and time restraints on X1. I thought he directed "Men Alone 2: The K-Y Connection" but that was just a home movie of his someone sent me. Thank you! So get off Ratner's dick. And whoever said that in good movies you don't kill the bad guys is a choad. However, killing the two leads in a movie that you still want to remain a franchise is not a good idea, unless one of the characters is a replaceable cyborg or clone. And if they have the idea of somehow bringing them back, bad idea. They're already doing this once with Jean Grey. Even Star Trek knew to only do that once with Spock. Oh wait, they did it with Data too. Which brings me to my last rambling point. If they do kill Professor X, then maybe Patrick Stewart will want to do another Trek film. Because it can't end on Nemesis. It just can't.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:07 a.m. CST
He might be a studio hack, but I enjoyed RUSH HOUR (a silly, though fun action movie) and RED DRAGON (sorry, but it's better than Michael "So 80s It Hurts" Mann's take on it. I mean, shit, even the police station has neon lights? C'mon now). It's a damn shame that Singer left, but, hey, that's what happens when a studio fucks a director in the ass... and I mean that metaphorically of course. (ps. Boy I miss the Zone. The TBs blow.)
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:07 a.m. CST
you DO know that quoting out of context knowingly is akin to lying, right? i mean, you quote me pointing out that there seems ot be a continuity problem with Superman II and Singer's Superman Returns, then try to use that against me as an example of why i am just like those i was complaining about. only thing is, you left out the part RIGHT after i said that where i went on to say that i can overlook that kind of thing, that i go out of my way to not get hung up on stuff like that in order to be able to enjoy as many movies as possible. but then, if you had accurately, fully quoted me you wouldn't have been able to accuse me of having a personality disorder, and in turn make yourself feel so superior, right? you talk about Fox depending on "people like me" to make X3 a success, but tell me, is WB depending on people like you any less to make Superman Returns a success?
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:13 a.m. CST
like killing cyclops, xavier and mystique. those are so inside, it's like they never happened.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:19 a.m. CST
yes, i know, then there is the 3rd option of "they'll both suck", which is an opinion i'm sure is well represented here. i'm betting both will be worth the time and $ to see, but neither will be in danger of being nominated for an academy award. still, its a good thing that studios make their decisions based on how they think the "general public" will receive a movie, and not based on comic/geek fans, or they wouldn't make comic/superhero movies at all, since everytime a comic-based movie is made the people who seem to hate on it the most are the very people you'd think would be happy to see the material get big screen treatment.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:25 a.m. CST
I think just a "taste" of Juggernaut would have been plenty for this movie. Preferably, I would liked to see a scene that reinacted the infamous bar fight between Juggernaut and Colossus that took place someplace in the #180's (I think). IF this review is accuate, then everything about this X-movie feels just plain wrong.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:32 a.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
Singer's too much of a pussy to not use William's score, Brando's likeness or the general production design of the originals. Fine, I probably would be too. But that means that he has to at least make an effort to stay as close to the continuity of Donner's universe as possible. He obviously took great pains to make the lead look like Reeve, he should at least make reference to one of the most important plot points in the films he is sequelizing. The only way he could show a larger lack of respect to the previous film would be to simply drop off a main character and Peter Jackson already did that and won an Academy Award for it.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:34 a.m. CST
by jasper Stillwell
..Vinnie Jones has all the acting chops of a stand-alone wardrobe. He doesn't have to RSC-standard ferchrissakes but being able to walk and talk at the same time seems a pre-requisite for an actor to me surely...? What a waste of potentially great character/villain. No one likes Ratner because he's a clueless hack. Professional, yes. But then If I had a top Director of Photography working for me, a great editor and a solid production backbone then even 'I' could turn out a fairly reasonable film I reckon. It's filmmaking by committee, at least with Singer (and he's no Orson Welles...) he created a franchise and a template for Ratner to work from. If that guy was left to his own devices we'd be talking straight to DVD here.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:36 a.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
Not in a manner to be rude, but I'm kind of having a hard time seeing who you're preaching to, aways back you were railing against people who are mad at Ratner for changing the comic, even though I see barely see that comment pop up here, and now you're going on about how there's seemingly no one here able to judge X3 independent of Superman Returns, even though, as far as I can see barely anyone's talking about Superman here, and even fewer in comparison to X3 (and really, you seem to be the main guy here bringing these films up together).
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:36 a.m. CST
by jasper Stillwell
...great pictures aside (which they are I reckon), I would 'do' Famke Janssen until her fillings rattle. I thank you.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:44 a.m. CST
However, that doesn't change the fact that this review is fake. Still, I don't need a fake review to tell me that this movie will suck. Ratner is a horrible hack. Proof? Red Dragon had the best cast this side of Casablanca. Ralph Fiennes. Anthony Hopkins. Ed Norton. Emily Watson. Harvey Keitel. And it was barely passable as a made-for-TV movie. And that's only because the performances so far outweighed the director's "vision" that they single-handedly elevated the material. Only instance ever of actors making a director look good. This time, he has a bad story and a bad lead actress, which means the movie will be bad. No discussion.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:49 a.m. CST
by Bass Ackwards
Than he's still fine to leave out parts of Supes II, since Donner was forced off that film. But Singer has said this isn't a true sequel, that he's playing off of the first film, and vaguely referencing some events of the second. Think of Returns as using Donner's films more as an implied history, rather than true continuity, like the James Bond flicks. He's basically using Donner's films as a starting point for his own film, the same way a standard adaptation would use comic books as a starting point for an adaptation, Singer is developing his Superman universe with the comics and some elements of Donner's films, but in the same way that a film that borrows story and design elements from the comics doesn't force it to be limited to those comics, Singer re-dipping into the Donner Superman doesn't mean his universe is limited to that Superman. The elements are simply there for him to pick and drop as he chooses, its simply a matter of how well Singer conveys this, whether it comes off as a sloppy sequel or a film that stands on its own, but using Donner as the platform doesn't limit him to the former or prevent him from achieving the latter.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:01 p.m. CST
it isn't just this particular tb, its a cumulative build up over the last month or so, from things said on the tb's and in zone threads. it is pretty common to see someone who is so sure Superman Returns is going to be good, and equally sure X3 will suck, because they just know Ratner is a hack, and Singer is gold. then there is the juevenile gay-bashing crowd that knock anything about Superman Returns because of what they think of Singer. i have said that there are some aspects of the early Superman Returns material that don't inspire me the way i would hope; Routh looks younger than i would like, and doesn't seem to use facial expressions much, at least not in the stills that have been released. but, you can't judge a performance on a few stills, so it isn't like i've closed the book on him.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:11 p.m. CST
People chuck verbal sludge at Ratner, because they believe he has no talent whatsoever. There seems to be a thing against people who make videos before becoming film directors, Ratner is one of those. Spielberg worked on many tv shows before becoming the most commerically successfull filmmaker of all time. Hitchcock, who straddled both worlds hated the young spielberg and would throw him off his film sets.There was deep resentment in the film world to people who worked in tv . Before becoming the pariah it is today MTV was genuinely Ground Breaking people like Ratnerr and Bay, Jones and Gondry and Fincher would not have there careers if it wasnt for MTV. There are people who in there minds, think they can do a better job than Ratner and Company and they are the ones who end up falling on their asses. They have no idea what the direction process is like so when they see someone like ratner and if there is one book that I recommend it is by Sidney Lumet and it is simply called Making Movies, read that book and you will get some idea what it is like to be director.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:11 p.m. CST
...I'm pretty sure you're the one who injected the comparison into this particular TalkBack. If you don't want people to compare the two films (which I'm not so sure you don't), then don't bring them up in comparison to one another. It's like asking for civility by telling everyone to go fuck themselves.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:22 p.m. CST
by jasper Stillwell
its nothing to do with a snobbery over video directors at all...just compare Fincher and Gondry's films to Ratners in terms of style, panache, execution, taste, subject material and pure cineamtic ambition. I agree with the poster on Red Dragon, a chilling book reduced to TV movie fodder - how else could you miss with that cast???
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:24 p.m. CST
i don't have any problem with people comparing two movies of the same genre being made and released relatively at the same time. especially when the director of one movie was the director of the other movie's prequels. comparison is natural. i don't understand why people think a movie should exist in a vacume, and that comparing it to other similar works is somehow "bad". "compare and contrast", its a pretty well established method of evaluating all sorts of stuff. it is the seemingly knee-jerk reactions and broad vague hate-filled criticisms with no real specific points that are such a drag.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:37 p.m. CST
WHERES THE ZONE?!
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:51 p.m. CST
The next 24 hours will tell if this review has any validity or not. If its an accurate review of X-Men 3, Harry will have Fox Lawyer bootprints permanently meshed into his ass by noon tomorrow PST. It's possible nothing will be done today because it's still the weekend and thus this article may go unnoticed until FOX execs return to work tomorrow. If, when you guys and gals come home from work tomorrow, and this story is still up....then it's totally fake. If it's gone...then it may (at least in part) be true.
Jan. 22, 2006, 12:55 p.m. CST
...which brings me back to my original point. 'Superman Returns' TalkBacks are chock full of knee-jerk reactions and broad, vague, hate-filled criticisms as well, arguably (emphasis on arguably, please) even less justifiably so than 'X-Men 3.' You don't have to defend one by kicking the shit out of the other, especially since some people's estimations of Ratner have nothing to do with the fact that he's replacing Singer.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:02 p.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
You have to love the Fox and Ratner defenders in some of the above posts: we need to be GRATEFUL to Fox and Ratner, and LUCKY to get another X-Men sequel. Now, I have nothing against the two, but Twentieth Century Fox and Ratner should thank their lucky stars and kiss our feet if we should so decide to hand over our hard earned dollars for tickets to their crappy little movie. It's the free market, babe. We vote with our dollars.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST
by Rant Breath
You fucking idiot, comic books are storyboards! They're ideal for direct adaptation more than anything else. Sin City has flaws but it's light years ahead of Elektra or even Hulk with it's hulk-poodles and absorbing-dad. The characters are popular because of the comics not inspite of them.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST
While Ratner is a tool ... Halle Barry had way too much input into this movie and INSISTED upon Storm having the amount of screen time she has. Why the studio didn't reject her and why Storm was not recast is beyond me because Halle Barry has been the worst thing about the Xmen series and now she's trashing it with her primedonna attitude and worthless contributions to a crappy X3. Blame Ratner all you want for this X3 travesty, but Halle gave birth to it.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:16 p.m. CST
i am in total agreement with you about the Superman Returns tb's. but i really don't think i was kicking the shit out of Superman Returns at any point here either, not in the least. i simply pointed out that i think there are people who are inconsistent with the reasoning used to bash on Ratner and X3, especially before they've even seen it.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:21 p.m. CST
I may have exaggerated a tad when I said "kicking the shit out of." My bizzad.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:23 p.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
How could any actor lacking the bad ass-ity of Willis, Jackson and Rhames and the 70's kitch of Travolta pull of that dialogue? And I maintain that Red Dragon wasn't quite as pedestrian as everyone claims. It was no Silence of the Lambs but I think "TV movie" is a bit harsh. When and if X3 sucks, then the allegations of Ratner being a hack can be justified. And even then it could be the writing.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:40 p.m. CST
Give her a Midol and she'll be back to blowing Cyclops again.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:42 p.m. CST
Yeah, I did like Rush Hour, I watch it anytime it's on TV. I don't think Ratner has done enough work for me to have a solid opinion of him as a filmmaker. Why I'm so dreading and anticipating this movie is because of the story, which I guess should then be blamed on the writer(s). Whoever decided Wolverine/Storm, making Mystique a human, Jean/Phoenix/Dark Phoenix (I really don't know who she is in this one) killing Cyclops and Xavier, killing off Magneto, making Storm the center of the movie, not having Nightcrawler, reusing Joss Whedon's comic and the X2 storyline, and probably totally forgetting that X1 and X2 exist, is the reason this movie *might* fail... Maybe not in the box office, because a majority of the audience won't even know why the fans are pissed, they'll probably think this is the coolest thing they've ever seen. But if you call yourself a fan, you have to admit, the things that are gonna happen in this movie are pretty fucked up. I guess the blame goes to "Hollywood", which includes Fox, Tom Rothman, and Halle Berry. I'm pissed at Ratner cause he went along with this bullshit. If he's not as bad as you say, then he wouldn't have kept this script. There are many positives to it, but the negatives always have more emphasis.
Jan. 22, 2006, 1:54 p.m. CST
You do realize that as director, Tarantino personally *chose* the actors, right? It's not like Bruce Willis, Sam Jackson and Ving Rhames were delivered to the set randomly by central casting. A good director carefully chooses his cast to make sure they can pull off the dialogue (which in this case was written by the director, again refuting your assertion that Tarantino was somehow propped up). QT did a lot more on Pulp Fiction than point a camera and call action.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2 p.m. CST
you just have to try to separate the comics from the movies. they are two different worlds. i mean, comic book readers do it all the time with the multiple incarnations of characters in various different series. how many different comics is Woverine in each month? how many alternate universes exist in the comic world anyway? as a casual observer i can't begin to keep up. so, just consider the movie versions as just one more alternate universe and if you can do that it should help you enjoy the movies more. or maybe not, just a friendly suggestion.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:08 p.m. CST
The movies totally disregard the XMen canon anyway, so who gives a flying fuck whether X3 has any consistency. The movies were universally amateur, uninspired, and uninteresting - which is exactly what I expect X3 to be.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:26 p.m. CST
by monkey tamer
I really would like a little background on who wrote this review. Do they work for the studio, the production offices, etc.? As tight a lid as FOX has been keeping on this I can't just see them allowing random people access to the first screening of the film (And didn't they just finish shooting it like a month ago. Seems a bit early for an "almost final" cut to be done.) Finally, if this is real, I would really like the reviewer to write in and tell us how it ends. The one thing that the first script review didn't go into and none of the info that has been leaked talks about is the third act. All the stuff mentioned in this review is stuff that has been heard on the Net for months. Write back in and throw us a bone of something we don't know. Then I'll have more faith that you saw this. Plus, call up your friends that were with you and encourage them to send in a review. If they did do a screening there has to be some more people out there that could back this up.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST
...they gave away a very specific location of where the movie was screened. Mann's Chinese Theater. Now that doesn't make the review any more real, but if anyone can verify that there was no screening there, then it does prove that it was fake.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:43 p.m. CST
by Nate Champion
I honestly feel sorry for anyone who has any interest in this fiasco at all. There are so many great movies worth caring about, and this sure ain't one of 'em.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:49 p.m. CST
This just proves that Bret Ratner can't direct worth shit.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:55 p.m. CST
But just like every other sci-fi franchise, they drop the ball.
Jan. 22, 2006, 2:59 p.m. CST
"I went to rotten tomatoes to see what they rated it and they totally bashed it." Are you really this stupid? It's a collection of reviews from all over.
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:03 p.m. CST
Frist of all stop using the word REGULATE for RELEGATE. And also people EXACT revenge on others they don't EXTRACT it on or from them. That being said I'm a comic book writer and I agree with most talk-backers that comics are storyboards AND that they are great stories told through (hopefully) great artists. Why movies are or should be different from classic successful comic-book counterparts are beyond me. Sure you can't do the yellow spandex, but the heart of the characters needs to be there. The PREMISE of the charcters and the concept HAVE to be there. I'm looking forward to both this and Superman Returns and although most of this review sounds plausible I'm praying for the best and expecting the worse.
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:03 p.m. CST
I start off with a typo! lol
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:06 p.m. CST
Movies are subjective. Obviously, what one calls a piece of crap, another loves. Movies such as Hostel, where in his own words, director Eli Roth said he wanted to
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:07 p.m. CST
by Rant Breath
with better casting and better direction. Fuck Ratner, fuck Singer, and FUCK FOX!
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:14 p.m. CST
X3 wasn't screened at the Mann's Chinese Theater. The reviewer was talking about when he/she saw X2 there, and how people were laughing when Wolverine was crying because Jean "died". And Peven, yes, I understand they are two separate entities, and I never expected the movies to completely follow the comics, I'm all for creative interpretation when it comes to adapting to screen. But from what we've seen of X1 and X2, how on earth can Wolverine just suddenly have this romantic interest in Storm, and vice versa?!?! It just doesn't make sense!! I mean, maybe they'll say, "ooo, she's rebound, he's getting over Jean." But come on, that's sooooo lame!!! I've never picked up a comic book in my life, the first time I was exposed to the X-Men was the first movie, and then I went straight into the WB animated series (Evolution)... All my comic book knowledge has come from online research, and I have to say, I think I know quite a lot for being such a newbie to the universe. But going by the first two movies, this is totally going in a direction that makes it obvious that this is not at all similar to anything Singer showed us. And I think that's a big mistake. Of course, every filmmaker should put their own unique mark on their movies, but not so outrageous as to make a completely different one from what the audience knows and is comfortable with. Look what Singer is doing with Superman Returns. He respected what Donner did, and by the looks of it, it's very similar to Supes I & II, but of course it has his own spin on it. Ratner is completley defacing what we know the "movie universe" to be. So, I dunno, we'll see what happens at midnight on May 25/26.
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:15 p.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:19 p.m. CST
YOU GUYS KICK ASS!!! Thank you for seeing movies as they really should be, and for realizing the problemSSS with X3.
Jan. 22, 2006, 3:31 p.m. CST
Whoopsies. So yeah, scratch that last post of mine then.
Jan. 22, 2006, 4:19 p.m. CST
No Gambit? No Sentinels? Damn... but oh well, I was gonna watch this thing to see more Magneto anyway... as long as the action is good I'll be there...
Jan. 22, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 4:55 p.m. CST
by 3 Bag Enema
I never said a word in defence of Superman Returns. I'm here to piss on Fox for X3.
Jan. 22, 2006, 4:59 p.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:18 p.m. CST
If theres one thing X3 does right, it's leaving that overrated cajun out of the picture. Most of you that like him, are the ones that just watched the cartoon. Remy is so far down on the totem pole of characters they need to give time to, it's not even funny.
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:22 p.m. CST
by Evil Chicken
We shall see... Rent or not to rent.
Jan. 22, 2006, 5:46 p.m. CST
I'm Guessing you never watched SIN CITY. EVER! Sin City was greaty because it was a direct TRANSLATION not an Adaptation. Frank Miller said(something like) that himself and was right. Just TRY and imagin how amazing X-Men would be if to was anything like the comics. But No! Conventional wisdom in Hollywood,(witch is easly confused with Conventional STUPITIDY) is that we need to change things so that the majority of the movie going public will go to it. SAD SAD SAD. Well maby the DVD will be better and recut.
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:14 p.m. CST
"remember the 40 years of character development and complex relationships between characters? remember quite possibly the most brilliant storyline the medium of comics has produced? Yeah, well fuck all that. I'm cashing a check, nerds." I'll post the link to that quote when I can find it. I'm a busy man.
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:21 p.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 6:59 p.m. CST
not even a spoiler warning! i dont believe half of this stuff, ill guess ill have to wait until opening day.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:07 p.m. CST
by Dustin Elmore
Considering Sin City was a comic that mimicked Film Noir movies, it's only natural it would lend itself more to a direct adaptation. And whoever it was that said they were a comic writer who didn't understand why comics aren't directly adapted to film, that alone makes me seriously doubt your talent.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:14 p.m. CST
by Canada's King
Oh...and WTF, no Gambit???
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:20 p.m. CST
by tango fett
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:22 p.m. CST
by Citizen Arcane
and that's part of directing but there's a fine line between what Pulp Fiction is and was a distaster it could have been with lesser actors.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:34 p.m. CST
by Mr. Profit
Seriously, it seems like it was written by someone too bitter. This is bull and I'm sure the movie is not so fucked up.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:36 p.m. CST
Hey Quint, do you even check your sources before posting false garbage? How is it she attended a t screening that NOBODY else has sent you any information about as well as the movie is still in the diting and post production process...complete with reshoots and that there is no rought cut of the film that is ready for screening for the FOX executives, much less a select general audience. Quit feeding into hype and stop believing everyone just because they have a few pictures. That goes for Harry too. This movie may very well just fail...but let it do it by it's own merits, not from blatant LIES from internet frauds.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:38 p.m. CST
by Mr Brownstone
The only people interested in her, or her awful work, are gossip queens. It's a mystery why execs keep treating her like she's a star beyond the covers of the tabloids. Let alone allowing her to dictate the direction of this franchise whose success so far she had nothing to do with.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:38 p.m. CST
Oh yeah...Ratner had NOTHING to do with the script. He is only a director for hire.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:39 p.m. CST
by Mr. Profit
I kinda remember Rogue in an airport trying to kill Wolvie by kissing him. But that comic is mad old school, I was real young when I read it.
Jan. 22, 2006, 7:54 p.m. CST
I'm still hoping X3 will be good.
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:15 p.m. CST
Ratner's an Exec Producer on Prison Break... I suppose now everyone will say Prison Break sucks?
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:18 p.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST
But thanks for playing ;)
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:30 p.m. CST
The first two movies were solid, but never blew me away. It doesn't mean I haven't seen them more than once, though. As for Famke, I like her but she's always been too old for this role to begin with, IMO. Don't get me wrong, she's very attractive, but waaaay to old for this part. And why is it so hard to find someone, anyone with real red hair to play a part? And why did Cyclops just get sh*t on this entire series? Lame. Regardless of this reviewer's credibility, all signs point to a focus on Storm. The trailers tell you that much. It's such a shame. You can take the Halle out Catwoman: The Movie, but you can't take the Catwoman: The Movie out of Halle. She sucks. Bad Actress. Period. I think I'll wait for the Netflix release on this one...from my neighbor's mailbox. And why kill Professor X?!! And why even bother with such a story arch like the Pheonix saga, only watered down? They're accenting the wrong storylines and characters here with so many other better options from a rich comic mythology. Bummer. Big time.
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:31 p.m. CST
by Nairb The Movie
Its a coporate plant. They want us all to go to the movie and see if this review was right so we'll go an bitch about it later. PLANT! PLANT! PLANT!
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:35 p.m. CST
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:38 p.m. CST
I'd have to agree with most of what you said earlier. I think that there needs to be a new Renaissance in mainstream American filmmaking. I think our indie films are still doing okay as far as concept and content goes. I like smaller, story-driven films, but I also want the big actions on the Hollywood budget. Thanks to the 'voice' of the internet, I am wishfully hoping that Hollywood will pay more attention. If we keep making mediocre films, then this will only advance our poor audiences to a mediocre way of thinking. We won't know the 'goods' until we are shown the 'goods'. I'm an optimist, so I'm just sitting here patiently and waiting for that next young genius director to make a crazy special effects laden film on a Hollywood budget -- with a good story, of course -- that will both you and I forget about masters of the past. I think this genius is here and amongst us. We just need to give this person some time to grow. And when this person is ready... watch out, world.
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:43 p.m. CST
Typo. I forgot to slip in the word, 'make' in between, "that will ____ both you and I forget about masters of the past."
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:49 p.m. CST
Well just to prove I'm not the only one who likes Prison Break, seems tv.com's community agrees with me. And I liked Hulk. Hate Survivor. Haven't watched 24 religiously since season 3 (I am watching season 5 but the jury's out on it as yet). Fear Factor is amusing, but hardly anything I'd watch week in week out. As for being Ratner in disguise? No! Of course, I'm Singer in disguise... cos usernames make such *good* disguises.
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:52 p.m. CST
The bad blood mostly stemmed from Rogue getting her powers from Ms.Marvel a.k.a. Carol Danvers, a friend of Logans. Rogue couldn't cope with the memories of Danvers that she absorbed and left The Brotherhood (Mystique's Brotherhood) and went o Xavier for help. She shortly there after, accompanied the X-men to Japan for Logan and Lady Mariko's wedding, but after the X-men are poisoned, her and Wolvie go after the culprits. During a tussle Logan saves Rogue, and she playfully offers him a kiss as a reward, but he doesn't like that idea too much. (Of course that might not be the kiss you're talking about, but, I doubt anyone would try something like that with Mr.Howlett more than once.) In the flicks, Rogue filled the Kitty Prde/Jubilee role.
Jan. 22, 2006, 8:58 p.m. CST
So that means 'X-Men 3' is gonna be good. Or something. Honestly, what are you saying? Kiefer Sutherland is an executive producer on "24." Doesn't mean I want him directing 'X-Men 3' either.
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:04 p.m. CST
I don't really think that indies are all that much better than mainstream movie fare. You only hear about the good ones.
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:16 p.m. CST
Point is, the guy doesn't *always* make rubbish, or turn everything he touches into it. I share the resentment for whats happened to X3 as much as anyone (I am pretty worried about the end result) ... all I'm trying to say is there's a *chance* it won't completely suck.
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:18 p.m. CST
by monkey tamer
Surfing around between football today, I traced this whole Jean Gray pics/screening "review" back to the source - Superhero Hype boards. The more I read the crazier it got. The chick that wrote this review is psycho! She (or one of her friends) was emailing people who slammed her on message boards and pretended she was the Fox Legal department and they would sue anyone that slandered her on the boards. When the mods contacted Fox to see if it was true they said they had never heard of this girl and she didn't work for them. This chick has some serious reality issues. I'm not saying that the movie will be great, but this review is useless. I'm sure it seemed real to her, but for the rest of us that live outside her brain, it is pretty much meaningless.
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:23 p.m. CST
...yeah, I can see that. Personally "Prison Break" isn't my bag of tea, but I won't argue with you there. I think it's pretty unlikely that this movie will be good for a lot of reasons, but you're right, it's not like anything Ratner's involved with has to be bad.
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:38 p.m. CST
I've got low expectations (because Fox rushed it into production, not because of Ratner), so I'll probably be pleasantly surprised when the movie betters them, which really won't mean much. :)
Jan. 22, 2006, 9:58 p.m. CST
... so please do go, organise yourself a grassroots boycott-X3 movement and stick it to The Man. (Dunno if you'd really need to do much to organise such a movement though -- start by recruiting aicn tb posters ;))
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:25 p.m. CST
Any movie, really. Peace Out.
Jan. 22, 2006, 11:59 p.m. CST
IS moderated by Nazis. They ban you for violating a couple of seemingly minor rules like repeating a point that was said like 7 pages prior (fuck you if you think I'm reading thought pages and pages before I post. I don't have all day to read message boards) and posting something in one thread that they felt belonged in a different thread (even though it was a matter of opinion). They were rude as shit, too, in their justification of their warnings, even though it was totally unwarranted, and acted like it was a privilege to post there. Haven't bothered trying to get another name. Get over yourselves, guys.
Jan. 23, 2006, 12:52 a.m. CST
That is all
Jan. 23, 2006, 1:25 a.m. CST
It's not up anymore, but the URL includes the name MissLadyVenus, a pretty infamous faker of information. (To put it kindly.) Don't pay attention to it.
Jan. 23, 2006, 3:07 a.m. CST
You mean it will surprise all the doubters, get good reviews, and gross almost half a billion worldwide with about another 100 million in merchandise/gaming? Ratso should be so lucky. Or maybe Jackman's running for governor afterwards. Yeah, that's gotta be it. What a seer.
Jan. 23, 2006, 11:48 a.m. CST
I'm sorry, but a direct to screen comic adaptation would not work. Sin City was an Exception! Sin City was about visuals, mood and style. What it was NOT about was a coherent, unified story, character depth or socio-political theme, like X-men. Comics are a serial form, with tons of continuity and references within a single story. If anything they're more like soap operas or serial tv shows (imo, Buffy and Angel were the most like comic book adaptations in the way the narratives were structures - which is why Joss did such a good job with Astonishing). An X-Men series, if such a budget was possible, could be amazing. Even an animated series with the same kind of depth that Batman TAS or Justice League has would be great. Movies are a completely different medium (where you have two hours to get in, tell your story and get out), thus you need to come up with a unified story that serves the characters and themes, while using lots of shorthand instead of the lengthy exposition that comics afford. Now I'm not saying the X films were perfect in their adaptation. There'd be a few changes I'd make to give the characters more depth and make them closer to their comic counterparts (like make Sabretooth a bit smarter, so that he's working for Magneto, but has his own agenda, probably closely related to his interest in Wolverine - of course, that would have required an actor, not a wrestler). But the idea of a film being a slave to comic continuity is just ridiculous. Even in the comics themselves, there's only a vague sense of continuity between different runs. Every time a new writer takes on the X-Men, they change things up, often completely reversing what the previous writer did, and giving some weak explanation for the retcon. But it's what we're used to. Hell, the Ultimate Universe took more liberty with the characters than Bryan Singer ever did. So do I care when I'm watching a film adaptation if Juggernaut didn't get his powers from the Gem of Cyttorak? Hell, no. As long as there's a reason for him to be there (hopefully, having to do with his connection to Xavier). As for Dark Phoenix, we'll see. Love that last picture. I just hope she's surrounded by flame when she does it. Or maybe it's Madeline Pryor accessing her inner Goblin Queen. You never know.
Jan. 23, 2006, 11:49 a.m. CST
Jan. 23, 2006, 1:24 p.m. CST
I actually recently said to a friend that I know X3 will probably suck, but I'm hoping that maybe it will surprise and be a Terminator 3. Which is to say a sequel that while nowhere as great as the first two, was expected to suck, but was actually in and itself a lot of fun and entertaining and certainly didn't go the Batman & Robin route. Though the more I hear about X3, the more I think, "hmm... yeah, sounds pretty sucky."
Jan. 23, 2006, 2:03 p.m. CST
DOesnt AICN check anything about the source? She was known to do the same thing when X2 was in production. Total crap. Dont you think Shohreh Aghdashloo would be worth mentioning in a review?
Jan. 23, 2006, 6:07 p.m. CST
It is an unwritten rule here and on many sites NOT TO PUT SPOILERS IN SUBJECT LINES, you stupid motherfuckers!!! Spoilers are supposed to be limited to the body of posters' comments and clearly identified as such, usually with caps such as "SPOILER WARNING". People on this site want to be able to casually scroll down the boards without being exposed to major spoilers in the subject lines, you fucking numbskulls!!
Jan. 23, 2006, 6:39 p.m. CST
If you didn't want to know spoilers, then you shouldn't have clicked on the link to read the article. Seeing pictures of characters is a spoiler. We TalkBackers are Assholes and if you're scrolling through them then you should know youmight get spoiled. Besides, Quint did it first and I'm spreading the love. Asshole? Sure I am, I did it on purpose because I had the knowledge without my consent. I just wanted to see Phoenix pics because that's a level of spoiler I can handle without getting pissed off enough to ruin anything. Don't worry though, I'll be sure to tell anyone who wants to see this clusterfuck who dies.
Jan. 23, 2006, 8:25 p.m. CST
by monkey tamer
Just saw on xmenfilms.net that Fox publicist said that the film is at least a couple of months away from a rough cut, let alone a finalized version with special effects added. So all these people got worked up over nothing. So everyone who said it sucked based on this review have to eat crow... for now.
Jan. 24, 2006, 7:17 p.m. CST
DOGSOUP- I've been coming to this site for a long time- over six years as a regular (albeit a fairly quiet one)- and I have almost never had any trouble avoiding spoilers that I did not want to see. The main reason for that is because people here are generally pretty good about labelling their posts and so on. This includes the AICN staff. I am generally in the habit of scanning articles and boards cursorally, and if I see a large cap SPOILER WARNING, it is enough to keep me from reading something that I do not want to read. (I assume that many others who visit this site do likewise) Sometimes I do not care about certain spoilers, and indeed in some cases I am interested in getting inside info/spoilers on certain projects (this is, after all, an insider's movie fan site). In any case, regardless of your reasons not to, it is always a good idea to not put spoilers in your subject lines, and to put large cap SPOILER WARNINGS in the body of your comments, out of respect for your fellow Talkbackers. Just because someone else spoiled it for you doesn't give you any excuse to spoil something for others. And if you persist in being a spoiler on this site, don't expect to get much respect from other Talkbackers. 'Nuff Said.