Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

X-Men: First Class 226

I wasn't sure what to expect from the new X-Men: First Class movie. The previous 3 films have been riddled with ups and downs. What I didn't realize is that this film was going to really be a Prequel. I thought it was going to be a bit more of a reboot, but it still tries to fit in with the previous films. Read on for a brief review which will contain some spoilers. You have been warned!

The core the film takes place in the '60s, surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is a mixed bag: the fashion seems pretty spot on, which extends from mini-skirts to the actual character costumes which are generally much closer to their original comic source material than most comic movies these days. The music is pretty nice, but there are some musical cues that aren't period appropriate and it felt wrong to me.

The bulk of the story involves Professor X and Magneto meeting and starting the X-Men with a batch of kids that you mostly don't care about. Jean Grey and Wolverine and Rogue to me are the X-Men. But the X-Men pantheon is huge, and chars like Havoc and Banshee just don't have the same stuff for me. But that's ok because they are minor compared to the Professor, Mystique and Magneto in the scope of the movie.

The story is pretty simple: The psychic and his shapeshifting friend are met by the government official, and build a team to stop a super villain (Kevin Bacon) who is hell-bent on triggering a Nuclear War between the super powers. Mutant Pride! Humans Bad! Let's All Get Along! You know the themes the X-Men play with: they're all here in fairly heavy handed doses.

So here's my thoughts: Emma Frost was weak. I don't know why Mad Men's January Jones missed the mark: she was cold, but boring. It just didn't work for me. When Beast finally gets his ultimate mutation, he looks laughably bad. Watching Magneto make ridiculous faces when he attempts to move whatever giant iron plot device stands in his way gets old. And I don't know what the budget on this one was, but many of the effects were just below what I'd expect from a summer blockbuster.

The good news is that Charles & Magneto's plot is mostly solid and interesting. Watching Prof X hit on chicks as a young man is fun. Magneto's backstory is ground into you, but there are a number of really awesome scenes where he comes off as seriously badass. Mystique is mostly well handled as well. Sadly when all the X-Men pupils are together, things get a little cheesy. But I guess they are supposed to be teenagers. There are also a couple of cute cameos.

My short answer is that I went in with fairly low expectations: The last X-Men was rough — I just wanted a movie better than that. And I really got that and more. I think Thor was a bit more fun. And honestly I'm more excited for Green Lantern right now than either of these.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

X-Men: First Class

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 06, 2011 @01:46PM (#36352862)

    Borrowed from Yahoo Answers (

    * In X2, you can see Beast still as human on the TV
    * In X2, Magneto revealed he helped create Cerebro with Xavier. In First Class, the Cerebro prototype was made by Beast with input from Xavier.
    * Emma Frost is a teen in X-men Origins: Wolverine, which is set in the 70s. In First Class, which is set in the 60s, she is an adult.
    * In the comics, Havok is the younger brother of Cyclops. I'm not sure if they're are still brothers in the film, but Havok is now older than Cyclops.

    • by bigsexyjoe (581721) on Monday June 06, 2011 @05:28PM (#36355920)

      Also, at the beginning of X3 Jean Grey is recruited by a walking Professor X and Magneto. This is consistent if this is taken to take place during the events of First class, except that Ian McClenan and Patrick Stewart are playing the younger selves.

      But you know what? I don' want consistency as much a great story. If there's too much mythology, I see forget and take some poetic license. Was this story faithful to much of anything? Not really. Was it good? I say it was very good.

  • but this movie proved to me that, above all else, Kevin Bacon is really good at playing assholes in the movies

    plus I liked the brief cameos: the Hugh Jackman F-bomb scene and the Rebecca Romijn Mystique reprise. But where the fuck was Storm? Halle Berry couldn't be bothered or they didn't offer her enough $ for a brief appearance?

  • by roc97007 (608802) on Monday June 06, 2011 @01:51PM (#36352922) Journal

    > What I didn't realize is that this film was going to really be a Prequel.

    ...didn't realize... So... you missed all the clips and previews, then?

    • by xouumalperxe (815707) on Monday June 06, 2011 @01:56PM (#36352974)

      ...didn't realize... So... you missed all the clips and previews, then?

      So... you missed the bit where he said he thought it was a reboot? It being a prequel was news to me as well.

      • by roc97007 (608802) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:21PM (#36353288) Journal

        As an X-men fan, as I assume you are, I can't believe you missed that in the plethora of advance materials on the film.

        But to be utterly pedantic, I didn't see anything in the film that would forbid it from being a reboot. Personally, I'd like to pretend the other movies didn't happen. I suspect that won't be the case, but hope springs eternal.

        • by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Monday June 06, 2011 @03:13PM (#36353998)

          , I'd like to pretend the other movies didn't happen.

          I get that for X3, but X2? That's about as good of a movie as could ever be made out of X-Men as a source material.

          Which isn't to say it's Citizen Kane, but sometimes what works in a comic doesn't work awesome in a movie, and given the limitations of the source material it's a pretty great movie.

          • by Rakarra (112805) on Monday June 06, 2011 @03:34PM (#36354372)

            I get that for X3, but X2? That's about as good of a movie as could ever be made out of X-Men as a source material.

            I had really high hopes for The Wolverine, the upcoming Hugh Jackman film directed by Darren Aronofsky (Pi, Requiem for a Dream, the Wrestler, Black Swan) and written by Christopher McQuarrie (the Usual Suspects). The story of Wolverine in Japan, one of the character's most interesting/high points in the comics.

            Sadly, production was delayed, and Aronofsky dropped out because he didn't want to spend that long of a time on location in Japan. As far as I can tell, a replacement director has not been found.

            But I was left imagining what could have been. ;-)

    • by khr (708262) <> on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:18PM (#36353236) Homepage

      ...didn't realize... So... you missed all the clips and previews, then?

      Actually, I always try to miss all the clips and previews for any movie I'm vaguely interested in watching. They're so much more enjoyable going in with minimal expectations. And the previews usually give away too much, not enough that while watching the preview you know what's going to happen, but when watching the movie itself, having seen the previews, they've given you too much of a look into the later parts of the movie.

      I avoid watching previews if I can, and if I've seen a preview, avoid watching the movie for a few years, until the I've forgotten what I saw.

      • by roc97007 (608802) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:25PM (#36353342) Journal

        > Actually, I always try to miss all the clips and previews for any movie I'm vaguely interested in watching. They're so much more enjoyable going in with minimal expectations.

        Fair enough. I can appreciate that, and years ago I tried to do the same thing. The problem is, I got suckered into a big budget crapfest wayyyy too many times, and at today's prices, I just can't justify that anymore. A certain amount of Caveat Emptor is necessary these days in my opinion, which necessitates that surprises are fewer on opening days. Feel free to disagree.

        For instance, I very nearly ended up paying money to see Sucker Punch...

      • by tixxit (1107127) on Monday June 06, 2011 @03:12PM (#36353964)
        Same here. I stopped watching cable TV back when I was in University (couldn't afford it) and soon realized how much a trailer can ruin a movie. It was great going in to see a blockbuster and having 0 expectations about the movie. I still don't have cable, even though I'm no longer a broke student, and still avoid trailers like the plague. I also hate it when my friends hype up movies I haven't seen :\
    • by ildon (413912) on Monday June 06, 2011 @03:07PM (#36353870)

      A lot of my friends thought it would be a true reboot instead of a prequel, too. Looking back, I didn't really have any logic to back up thinking it would be a prequel rather than a reboot before I went in, either.

      • by Matheus (586080) on Monday June 06, 2011 @04:08PM (#36354974) Homepage

        I can't remember what resource I was watching but at some point the phrase "Another film filling in the history of the X-Men along the lines of Wolverine" pretty clearly said it was another prequel. As opposed to the line of thought "didn't have any logic to back up thinking it would be a prequel rather than a reboot" --> This is a franchise... there was nothing indicating that it was going to be a reboot where traditionally they make a big deal about that (Star Trek, Hulk, Batman)

  • by Random2 (1412773) on Monday June 06, 2011 @01:52PM (#36352930) Journal

    Havok isn't suppose to be in that time-line, at least not like that. But, no one pays attention to the details, right? Artistic liberty....

  • by kervin (64171) on Monday June 06, 2011 @01:57PM (#36352984) Homepage

    Nice to see there are no spoilers in the title. Taco you're come a long way baby.

  • by scumdamn (82357) on Monday June 06, 2011 @01:58PM (#36352992)
    I guess they are supposed to been teenagers too.
  • by cozzbp (1845636) on Monday June 06, 2011 @01:58PM (#36352998)
    A few strange things for me:
    In X-Men Origins: Wolverine, it shows a non-handicapped, bald, older Xavier greeting the mutant children.
    In X-Men 2, there are multiple references to how Magneto helped Xavier build Cerebro, hence why he was able to reconfigure it at the end to target humans instead of mutants.
    Other than that, I thought it was overall a pretty good movie.
  • by JoshuaZ (1134087) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:05PM (#36353088) Homepage
    There were some minor contradictions with the previous films. For example, in X-3 there's a flashback to Xavier and Magneto going to find Jean Grey and Xavier is already in a wheelchair. Also, the previous films didn't have any references to the apparently major Mystique/Xavier backstory they added in for this movie. Taco is incidentally very correct about how funny having the young Xavier hit on girls was- that was hilarious. Although, at least once he claimed that something was a mutation which probably wasn't; someone had two eyes of different colors. This was much more likely due to some form of mosacisim than a mutation. However, given how much X-Men abuses genetics this is comparatively minor.
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:08PM (#36353132)

    The problem is that the source material is pretty dire to begin with.

    Comic books are the classic case of remembering things as better than they were. Any commercial entertainment is about making money but the good stuff can also fit art in there. Comics have always been about making money. Yes, you can get art in some of the short run books or occasionally some good runs on major titles but these characters are the bread and butter of the comic companies. This is a business. And you don't risk the franchise by taking risks. So you do boring, predictable storylines. You have giant crossover events that promise everything will change but the biggest constant is your continued disappointment at being jerked around.

    I never had the money to get into comics but I've always been a scifi dork. The Battlestar Galactica I half-remembered from my youth is nothing like what actually aired. It was so much better. And Buck Rogers, I never remembered it being so tragically disco. And a lot of Trek is truly, spectacularly awful. My standards were increasing as TNG aired so I never properly appreciated the cringe factor of the early episodes until rewatching them.

    It's possible to accidentally make a really good comic book movie. The first Iron Man was good and shouldn't have been. The producers admitted they spent more time on the visuals than the plot. All the best lines were ad-libbed by Downey. And the second one proved how big of a fluke the first one was by being as awful as it deserved to be.

    The two Nolan Batman movies were better than we had any right to expect, especially given the direction the series had gone previously. I don't know what dark bargains were struck to keep studio intervention out of the process but damn, those were some good movies.

    The problem with a comic book movie is a director's hands are going to be tied more often than not. The movie's getting made because a deal's been inked and there's money to be made. That's as opposed to the reverse of the process where producers are championing an idea and are selling it to the studio on the premise it'll make money. Sometimes the distinction's hard to see but it all boils down to a question of whether the director's doing it for the vision or the paycheck.

    While the studio doesn't give a shit about anything other than making money, the real question is whether the creative team does. Witness "Pirates of the Caribbean: It's a Paycheck" or "Transformers 3: Michael Bay Needs Another Diamond-Encrusted Buttplug." You can't tell me anyone on those projects is is feeling the love. Contrast that with Lord of the Rings. Yeah, the studio couldn't give a shit about Tolkien or hobbits but they at least got out of the way of people who did. Then they fucked 'em on the percentage afterwards but at least not before the movies were made.

    So yeah, X-Men. How could this have possibly been a good movie? Keep the dream alive because god knows it can't fend for itself.

  • by Zoide (601381) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:14PM (#36353200)
    Ugh! You know, it's not like this is your personal blog, Mr. "CmdrTaco" (whoever you are)...
  • Best x-men so far (Score:4, Insightful)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:15PM (#36353214) Journal

    The first X-men movie seemed to be stiff and self-conscious. This is often the case in the first film of a franchise. What was unusual was that the second and third films were *more* stiff and self-conscious. Although there were enjoyable bits, overall the first film sorta worked as a "first film", the second mostly didn't work, and the third didn't work at all. I personally think this was due to an inexcusable overuse of Wolverine in what was supposed to be an ensemble cast. Feel free to disagree.

    Parenthetically, why do "blockbuster" movie scripts suck so often? If "the last stand" had a tenth of the creativity and pathos of "god loves man kills" it would have been worth watching. As it is we got a bunch of set-piece battles and some big digital effects, but the rest was cliche even for a comic book.

    Anyway, First Class had its problems (excellent dialog over here, really laughably bad dialog over there, like the writers were bipolar) (the change of Raven's appearance from appliances and body makeup to some kind of zip-up wetsuit) (Charles' inexplicably inept handling of his relationship with his adopted sister) but in general the story worked. It's the first x-men movie I've wanted to see twice.

    Yeah, Alex was really Scott's younger brother, Sean was a contemporary of Charles, yadda yadda. We've had so many different versions of the story in the comics (I prefer "Ultimate x-men") that I can't see how we could complain that the backstory has changed again. The movies really only need to be self-consistent. And worth watching. The last one wasn't. This one was.

    • by Rakarra (112805) on Monday June 06, 2011 @04:55PM (#36355560)

      The first X-men movie seemed to be stiff and self-conscious. This is often the case in the first film of a franchise. What was unusual was that the second and third films were *more* stiff and self-conscious. Although there were enjoyable bits, overall the first film sorta worked as a "first film", the second mostly didn't work, and the third didn't work at all. I personally think this was due to an inexcusable overuse of Wolverine in what was supposed to be an ensemble cast. Feel free to disagree.

      I didn't find the second X-Men film to be that stiff and self-conscious. Well, maybe some of the stuff with Jean and Cyclops, but I think Cyclops's casting was bad from the start. There was a lot of good stuff in the second movie with Nightcrawler talking with Storm, Wolverine and his past, Magneto as a victim (temporarily). I consider the second movie to be the best of the series, and that's because it had a single, clear narrative. In contrast, the third movie looked like they had three scripts, couldn't decide which one to chose, and just mashed them all together.

    • by PCM2 (4486) on Monday June 06, 2011 @05:07PM (#36355694) Homepage

      Parenthetically, why do "blockbuster" movie scripts suck so often?

      Because of the amount of money involved in producing them. The first draft of the script is probably a potentially very interesting movie. But every financial stakeholder comes to the table with its own requirements and its own ideas of how to maximize profit from the investment. The script follows from there. The result is usually a mishmash that takes no risks, demonstrates no creativity, and swiftly degenerates into recycled, unintelligible pablum.

      • by roc97007 (608802) on Monday June 06, 2011 @05:45PM (#36356120) Journal

        I think I agree. I mean, compare the plot and dialog of Batman: Sub Zero (1998) with Batman and Robin (1997). The former was an animated movie ostensibly intended for kids. The latter was... I dunno... At PG-13, I thought it might be intended for teens and young adults, but I think that's an insult to teens and young adults.

        The budget on the latter was estimated at $125M. Budget on the former isn't even listed, was probably in single digit millions. (This isn't a fair comparison, but I had to bring it up. Think of all the starving children $125M could have fed...)

        Yet, Sub Zero is by far the superior story. In fact, saying it was better than Batman and Robin is not saying enough. If you wanted to make a Mister Freeze live action film, and you just used the Sub Zero script as written, you'd still make a superior movie, even with the same lackluster cast.

        To bring this discussion full circle, this is why advanced information about "blockbusters" is absolutely vital these days. Because "blockbusters" so often degenerate into "death by committee", and by the time they reach the screen, they're a noisy, frantic, busy, mighty sucking sound. My daughter (16 year old art student) is so fed up with fractional-gigabuck crapfests that her desire to see a film has become inversely proportional to its budget, and she heavily favors small independent studios that are still willing to take chances. I can't fault that. I still want to see Green Lantern, though. Even though it could be this year's transforrretch. I still can't say it.

  • by G3ckoG33k (647276) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:21PM (#36353278)

    Well, this flimsy plastic movie made by a bunch of fat dudes in Kentucky or wherever [] may still pack a punch. Never underestimate bad taste [].

    I will see it!

  • by Spellvexit (1039042) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:23PM (#36353312)
    I read a lot of old school X-Men comic books growing up, and while there were plenty of inconsistencies both when measured against the X-Men canon and even internally, I found that the overall excellent writing and clever use of mutant powers won me over. This movie was a lot more subtle than its predecessors, from the 60's touches to the stronger focus on the characters, and I appreciated that.

    They made some weird choices for characters. I don't know if Darwin even has a precedent (probably not, given his character's treatment), but who was the guy who blew the tornadoes? Azazel [] was also an odd choice. He doesn't really belong in the Hellfire club, from what I can tell, though he does set up Nightcrawler fairly well.

    Spoiler (and an example of internal inconsistency) -- what the devil happened to all of that energy Shaw sucked out of the submarine? I felt his powers were somewhat poorly defined to begin with, but when you suck a nuclear submarine's batteries dry, doesn't that energy go *somewhere*? I suppose it could be explained away in one way or another, but it would have made a lot more sense if there were an explosion or some other kind of awesome manifestation of the power he ate.
    • by Rakarra (112805) on Monday June 06, 2011 @05:09PM (#36355718)

      I haven't seen the movie, but from what I remember of Sebastian Shaw from the comics was that his body worked as an energy battery -- absorbing kinetic energy, which he could then turn into super-strength and durability. So I guess he's saving it up. Didn't think he could absorb that much, but I'm not sure if they ever established what his limits were.

      I think Kevin Bacon would have looked rockin' with Shaw's mutton chop sideburns, though.

      • by Spellvexit (1039042) on Monday June 06, 2011 @05:32PM (#36355940)
        I remember that much about him as well. However, in the movie, his expended power manifests itself in several different ways -- from awesome energy shockwaves to power pellets he can deploy to flicks of a finger loaded with kinetic energy. I expected more of the latter -- that is, punches and other strikes disproportionately loaded with energy. I'm not complaining, but I just didn't have a very good feel for his power's mechanics.

        I thought that Kevin Bacon, while not really resembling Shaw very well, still made a captivating villain. I especially enjoyed his brief depiction as a Nazi scientist at the very beginning of the movie. The latest Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me [] has a small but enjoyable interview with him regarding, among other things, his role as Shaw. :) And I can totally see see him with muttonchops!
  • by fallen1 (230220) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:29PM (#36353394) Homepage

    None of the movies that are in the hands of Sony/Columbia/Etc. are going to get the treatment they deserve. The X-Men's first class was Marvel Girl (aka Jean Grey), Cyclops, Iceman, Beast, and Angel. Period.

    Spider-Man and other super-hero movies do not need two or three villains to tell a good story. Let me repeat this - they DO NOT NEED TWO OR THREE VILLAINS. One main villain (or group of villains - Hydra, The Hand, and such are OK) and some good character development on both sides and BAM! instant summer success. Add in special effects to compliment and enhance the story, not to tell the story because your writers suck.

    So, until said studios lose their rights to those properties and they get a proper treatment MAKE MINE MARVEL!

    • by kimvette (919543) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:54PM (#36353704) Homepage Journal

      None of the movies that are in the hands of Sony/Columbia/Etc. are going to get the treatment they deserve.

      Maybe so. I really enjoyed Spiderman and Spiderman 2 though; I think Tobey Maguire was cast perfectly as Peter Parker. I mean, Peter Parker is a nerdy person but happened to have a decent physique. Tobey Maguire had a bit of a nerdy look, and with working out he had a nice physique, between his nerdy-yet-fit appearance and the mild persona he always seems to have, he was the perfect Spider Man.

      I don't like the idea of the upcoming reboot; I would rather they pretend Spiderman 3 was never made. The problem with Spiderman 3 wasn't the casting; it was in the writing. They had far too much going on for even a two hour and twenty minute movie for the story to feel anything but rushed, the plot full of holes, and character development and suspense all too shallow. It seems with the recasting they are punishing the wrong people; it's exactly like shooting the messenger because they didn't like what the author wrote. I'd rather see them continue with Maguire, Dunst, and Franco continuing their roles, with only one major villain. It would be fine if there were subplots going on, such as Franco's multiple personality disorder phasing in and out so that Goblin and Spidey have a couple of minor altercations, but Osborne and Parker still struggle to maintain their relationship. It would be more fitting to the schizm Osborne had which ultimately leads him to becoming a super villain with an axe to grind, and would be better character development of which the franchise is far more deserving.

      Let us regard Spiderman 3 as the new Highlander II. ;)

    • by Zironic (1112127) on Monday June 06, 2011 @03:01PM (#36353756)

      Maybe this comes as a shock to you, but Marvel does have creative control over their movies ever since they made their own Movie Studio back in 1996 and have been making their own movies ever since 2000 (Distribution being handled by Fox).

      So it's not that the evil movie studios are ruining Marvels honest attempts at making faithful comic book movies, it's that Marvel doesn't give a shit about doing faithful comic book movies as much as they care about making movies that people actually want to see.

      Almost all the movies they've done since opening the Marvel Studio have been blockbuster successes which tells you that they're pretty good at what they're doing.

  • by c0d3g33k (102699) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:46PM (#36353624)

    to me *are* the X-Men

    Silly movie fanboy! Jean Grey is the only one of those three that qualifies as an original X-person (along with Cyclops, Beast, Angel and Iceman). Wolverine was originally a throwaway character in an otherwise forgettable Incredible Hulk issue and Rogue was a third-rate villain in an Avenger's Annual (number 10). Wolverine at least has the distinction of being a member of the team that launched the title to fame (starting with Giant-Sized X-Men #1 and Uncanny X-Men 97), so he's got some credibility. But Rogue? Meh.

    Kids these days! No appreciation for history.

    • by Rakarra (112805) on Monday June 06, 2011 @05:15PM (#36355776)

      Ah, but I do have an appreciation for history! The problem is that the original X-Men started strong, but the title ended up not being very good and got canceled. It was only published through reprints for awhile until Giant-Sized #1 and X-Men #94 relaunched the franchise. Writer Claremont and artist Cockrum quickly turned it around into a world-class publication, and then Canadian John Byrne took a liking to fellow canuck Wolverine and turned him from "angry little nobody" to "series' most interesting character."

      Rogue was fun, the series' first real heel-turn-to-hero character they'd gotten before, and her reasons for switching sides were pretty neat, back in the #160 - #180 days or so. The early 80s were a fantastic time to be an X-Men. 90s and beyond? I just couldn't get into it anymore. I just keep losing interesting after Inferno.

  • I saw this not having seen any of the previous X-Men movies and enjoyed it, found the story between Xavier and Magneto pretty engaging and liked the actors. There was a lot intentional(?) camp though and this has to be the first movie ever where I laughed out loud during a Nazi concentration camp scene. Multiple times.

    January Jones is a seriously awful actor though. I guess the Mad Men writers are really good at hiding that, more props to them.

    I went with someone who was at least familiar with the other movies and some of the comics, and it was cool asking him "so this guy with the chest laser is going to turn into the guy with the eye laser?"

  • by Ferretman (224859) < minus cat> on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:52PM (#36353680) Homepage
    Five out of five...well done all around.
  • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday June 06, 2011 @02:56PM (#36353720)

    I know women wear smaller bikini's these days but masses of women in lingerie must have been nice to live with while the sexual revolution was in full bloom and women had not yet become equal.

    The film was enjoyably sexist (as a male fantasy). Perhaps from Mad Men ? (which I haven't watched).

    I think this is the 2nd or 3rd reboot of continuity now. They don't toss everything out but they do drop big chunks. Clearly Xavier and Magneto are NOT children of the atom due to the new Retcon to their origins being well before the first A-Bombs dropped.

    I found the "gay and proud" to be jarring and heavy handed. And a bit cliched. And a bit "90's"/early "00's" when it was cooler. Or perhaps just no delivered well by the actors and shoehorned in to scenes. The "don't ask don't tell" reference was better delivered and flowed better.

    I thought the death scene was pretty damn "Phantasm" horror movie terrible and implicitly Xavier helped since he could have released control of Shaw and chose to scream instead.

    It was a bit sad to see all the familiar X-Men youthified. I remember Rogue deaging from a competent mid 30's adult to a 20 year old not legal to drink character. I was also said that professor X got the chair in this film. It would have been nice to have that happen in a second or third film. And it violates canon (which showed him bald and young walking around the middle east and fighting a powerful psionic there).

    I remember the original shaw having different powers ( mind control?) and being more sean connery like in appearance.

    I severely disliked the VTOL blackbird. I liked the 'stunt character' drop ins (storm, wolverine) but disliked the John Saxon (and the guy from Roswell/Bones) on the ship. Saxon was fine in Starship Troopers but out of place here. An anonymous actor would have been better here.

    Overall I would say it was a "1st class" movie-- just don't think about it too much.

    And loved Moira in lingerie. Even tho it covered more than a bikini which might stir any interest at all.

  • by MattW (97290) <> on Monday June 06, 2011 @03:08PM (#36353894) Homepage

    I quite liked it. Rivals the original (#1) as my favorite. Would definitely see a sequel.

  • by Avatar8 (748465) on Monday June 06, 2011 @03:17PM (#36354084)
    Is this really from CmdrTaco or is he posting it for a less than 20 year old? By the grammar and spelling mistakes, the general shallowness of the review and the lack of the real elements of the movie, I'm guessing the latter.

    I saw this movie Friday, and while I didn't love it, I thought it was extremely enjoyable and a good fit with the rest of the Marvel stable of movies. Yes, it's a prequel and you know how it's going to end. Even so I thought the key story, the relationship between Charles and Eric and their back stories, was done very well. X-men has always been a gray area of debate, no clear good/bad side - Xavier's point of living peacefully with humans and Magneto's point of mutants dominating - are arguable from both points of view. This story set the baseline of that debate.

    I thought it interesting that most of the cast was comprised of mostly unknown (to me) actors. Not being steeped in comic lore, I knew who a few characters were, but not all. The writers seem to expect viewers to know characters very well as they never once (that I caught) mentioned Riptide and only said Azazel a few times. i.e. for non-comic book mavens, a little more introduction would help.

    I thought the main item lacking was the amount of action and especially working as a team. It's as if their powers were for display only. The montage of training and finding mutants was my favorite part of the entire movie. One point of annoyance was Banshee's mumble, but again, maybe that's part of his character and I just didn't know it.

    If you try and lookup a few Marvel characters, you'll quickly realize that the movies can pick and choose any timeline or group they wish. Marvel has had so many reboots, re-writes and re-groupings it takes a real comic geek/genius to keep up with it all. I thought Havok was Cyclops' father by the movie timeline only to find out later he's his brother according to the comic history. I guess we're lucky to have anything resembling a thorough story for the movies.

  • by NoobixCube (1133473) on Monday June 06, 2011 @04:48PM (#36355482) Journal

    When the initial trailers showed Emma Frost and the Hellfire Club, most people assumed this would not be part of the X-Men film universe, but part of the relatively new Marvel Film Universe (that is to say, it would co-exist with the current Iron Man, Avengers, Captain America, Hulk and Thor). Emma Frost had already appeared younger and later, and nothing like Emma Frost at all, in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so it was a reasonable assumption that these wouldn't be in the same universe. I was hoping these three would be followed up with three that didn't have atrocious writing. The X-Men movies, god only knows how they've been so successful, they contradict themselves and the source material at every chance they get. I'm not saing the source material was perfect, a lot of writers worked on that over the years, and obviously nobody can remember EVERYTHING any other writer has EVER written into the plot, but with just a handful (relatively) of writers working on the movies, you'd think they could at least maintain internal consistency.

  • The core the film takes place in the '60s, surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is a mixed bag: the fashion seems pretty spot on, which extends from mini-skirts...

    The Cuban Missile Crisis occurred in late 1962. Miniskirts did not actually appear as normal "fashionwear" until at least 1965 (in London) and were not prevalent in US fashion until around 1967. Of course, you couldn't bother the writers to actually get this correct, with their detriments of (a) being from Hollywood and (b) being gen-Whatever slackers who were hard-pressed to research the 1960s enough to come up with a historical event around which to base the movie... Maybe we could do it around the Korean War! That was in the sixties, wasn't it?

    And I speak of this as an old fogie who understands that the greatest downside of computers was their replacement of attractive young file clerks in short skirts.

Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"