MovieChat Forums > ReelReviews14 > Replies
ReelReviews14's Replies
Wicked, Beetlejuice 2, The Crow remake, Gladiator II, Joker 2, Venom 3, Alien Romulus, Captain America 4, and Mufasa: The Lion King, and some Guy Ritchie movie.
And honestly, I can't say I'm interested in seeing ANY of those films. Tons of unnecessary sequels and soulless remakes. In fact, seeing the trailers made me even LESS interested (although some of them like Alien: Romulus looked good visually)
The dumbest thing was hiring the guy who screwed up the Phoenix Saga in the FIRST place (Simon Kinberg) to "get it right" the second time around on film. Hollywood shouldn't be giving screenwriters mulligans. If they really wanted to "fix" the problems of The Last Stand, they SHOULD have started with a clean slate.
The second problem, as you noted, is the Phoenix Saga source material is an entirely different format than a "one shot" like Days of Future Past. In the comics, the Phoenix Saga was a long storyline that took MONTHS to unfold. The slow moving, detailed events taking place meant there was no way they could do it justice in a 90 min. "stand alone" movie, either in 2006 OR 2019. The X-Men animated series in the 90s realized this and made the whole "Phoenix saga" a 5 part story and 4 part followup, rather than a basic two episode story.
I agree on the third part of your premise: I never liked Sophie Turner as Jean Gray, and she lacked the gravitas that Famke Janssen brought to the role. However, she was the least of the film's problems. Neither Turner nor Janssen was able to successfully sell the audience on the whole "dark phoenix" persona due to script problems.
>> And it's not a trilogy since it's just a spinoff and not related at all to the previous movies <<
Ummm, last time I checked, all three Wolverine solo movies are "spinoffs" not directly tied into the "main" X-Men films (aside having Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and a few small cameos from the other X-Men actors) and all three are "stand alone" films that are NOT related to the previous entry or their successors... for example, The Wolverine (2013) doesn't reference the events of X-Men: Origins at all, takes place many decades later, and loosely follows up on events after X-Men 3: The Last Stand instead.
The films have entirely different casts, setting, and time period they're set in, with the ONLY common factor being Hugh Jackman as Wolverine himself.
I could tell something was "off" about "Captain America" before he said it.
I also find it ironic that Dark Phoenix was made to "fix" the problems of the Phoenix Saga and "do it right", but ended up being WORSE than Last Stand. Reminds me of Man of Steel pledging to correctly do what Superman Returns failed to do, but ending up with a far more divisive response and poor critical reviews.
It's weird, I remember when it came out in 2006, people really enjoyed The Last Stand and it had a very successful run in theaters. Then it seemed like a few years later, everyone hated it, cursed out Brett Ratner as a "hack", and blamed it for "killing" the X-Men cinematic universe. Then after Days of Future Past came out, people started warming to The Last Stand again, and it had its merits and was now seen as a "middle entry" rather than a franchise ender. Now it seems like people are singing its praises again and see it as a "classic" film, so we've gone full circle.
My opinion on Last Stand is the same as it was in 2006, and hasn't changed in all that time: Messy, but fun. They tried to cram WAY too much content into the movie, and as a result it felt rushed and had an abrupt conclusion. But the content we did get was pretty awesome, they had SO MUCH great fan service in that film, like finally giving us Beast (perfect casting!) and so on. Angel and Kitty Pryde were also great, etc., it's impossible for me to dislike that film.
I agree, its a rare example of a trilogy where the first film was the weakest and the third was the best... opposite direction that most Hollywood trilogies go.
Interesting enough, the three Wolverine solo movies are the same way (Logan is the third one and BY FAR the best film in the trilogy)
StealthCrasher and TurdFerguson apparently watched a different movie from the rest of us. It's like people trying to claim Star Trek was "always woke" but they defeat their own argument by whining about how a season 1 episode of TNG was "racist" and shouldn't be shown anymore, etc., etc.
I don't. It will go down in history as a "what were they thinking?" failed black sheep of the franchise, like the "Lightyear" spinoff of Toy Story, the all-female Ghostbusters "reboot", the 1967 "Casino Royale" James Bond movie with David Niven, etc., etc.
Yep, she is "openly non-binary" and the media plays along with it and pretends she doesn't have an obvious gender distinction.
Meanwhile, in the real world, she's probably the LEAST "non-binary" gal on screen, playing all kinds of iconic pretty ladies, like Princess Diana.
If she's non-binary and doesn't fit into traditional gender roles, then so is Clint Eastwood.
Exactly. The Mad Max franchise with the CHARACTER of Mad Max is popular and iconic. Nobody gave a crap about a so-called "Mad Max" movie about some other character.
She looks hotter when she's not bald, but her performance was good in this movie and she had a lot of charm and swagger.
I find it ironic the actress goes out of her way to "identify" as "non-binary" in public and INSISTS on being addressed with "they/them" pronouns and has the media obediently going along with it and grovelling before her new "identity". She looks AND acts 100% female in public, exclusively plays biologically female characters, and still goes by "Emma" instead of selecting some new "gender neutral" name that reflects her new "identity".
She's about as "non binary" as Boston is in the midwestern United States.
I did watch the movie. I was reluctant to get into the films at first because they were gloating about "openly pansexual Deadpool!", then when I finally sat down to watch the first Deadpool film, he turned out to be a straight dude and the only character he was madly in love with and slept with was a woman. He did like to mess with people's heads and joke about gay sex, but it was all trolling.
Did YOU watch the movie?
I was shocked he was so good at doing the stereotypical "Ragin' Cajun" Gambit voice. His version of Gambit was like a flesh and blood incarnation of the cartoon Gambit. I still prefer Taylor Kitsch's more grounded take, but I gotta give Channing Tatum credit for dialing it up to 11 when he played Gambit.
Now, looking back on the last 24 years, just as we never got Hugh Jackman in the mask until now, it's weird we've had decades of X-Men movies and nothing more than two small supporting roles for Gambit. He really needs to be a full fledged main character in an X-Men movie FOR ONCE!
>> Cruise seemed like a long shot as well and with a huge ego like that one, I just don't see him taking on a role for one he didn't get originally as THE Iron Man. <<
I don't see why not. Has everyone forgotten the famous "reveal" at the start of Austin Powers 3 where Austin turned out to be.... Tom Cruise? He had no problem doing a cameo for that one and playing an "alternate universe" version of a character made famous by Mike Myers.
Dr. Strange 2 COULD gotten just as many surprise reveals as Deadpool & Wolverine, IF they really wanted to make an effort and push the envelope...
I never liked the idea of Channing Tatum as Gambit (Taylor Kitsch had already established the live action version of the character, done a solid job in a bleh movie, and SHOULD have been allowed to continue).
That being said, Tatum has desperately wanted to play the role for a decade and since they finally let him do it, he really cranked it up to 11 and WAS Gambit on steroids. The guy was pretty much a living version of cartoon/comic book illustration and overdid Gambit to perfection. I didn't think he could actually do the "Gambit accent" but he freakin' nailed it with the Cajun swag and sounded like Justin Wilson on steroids.
I still prefer Taylor Kitsch's more grounded and subtle portrayal for a three dimensional, flesh and blood human being, but Tatum WAS the cartoon version come to life. Shades on how I never wanted Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man after Tobey Maguire, but he freakin' NAILED it in No Way Home.
Bingo, you nailed it. It's similar to when they adapt Stephen King's books. His original source material is good, but the MORE 'creative control' he has over the film adaptation, the WORST it gets!
For example, let's compare two films from 1986:
Stand By Me: Based on Stephen King's short story 'The Body'. He sold the movie rights, wasn't involved after that, and had absolutely zero say in ANY aspect of the movie's production.
Maximum Overdrive: Stephen King's baby! He PERSONALLY produced the film himself, wrote the shooting script himself, AND directed it himself, micromanaging EVERY aspect of the movie's "vision" from start to finish!
Now, compare the audience scores, critical reviews, and box office for both movies....
They seem to be playing 100% exclusive female characters: Jillian, Lady Chatterley, Cassandra Nova, Anna Harding, Esther Carter, Princess Diana, Darby Hart...
Why not Conan the Barbarian, King Leonidas, Matt Dillon, Spartacus, Bruce Banner, Dutch Schaefer, Sgt. Hartman, etc., etc.?
Let's showcase Emma's acting talent and truly non-binary nature to portray roles of any gender!
>> some critics found "El Royale" to be a sub-par Tarantino knock-off...but here was QT using one of the musical cues FROM "El Royale" for HIS Manson family movie. <<
I agree, the critics had it backwards. Bad Times was an awesome, unique, stylish film in its own right. Once Upon In Hollywood was probably Tarantino's weakest film, and it copies the same music soundtrack, but uses it FAR less effectively. Once Upon WISHES it could be Bad Times!
Nah, its the opposite unless you're Hack Snyder. His FIRST film (a remake of Dawn of the Dead that stunned EVERYONE how mind numbingly awesome it was) was his BEST, and it's been increasingly downhill since then. Most legendary "A-list" directors in Hollywood are EMBARRASSED by their first film, and consider it to be some shoddy, low-budget fly-by-night work done by a wet-behind-the-ears amateur who couldn't get any better material at the time. It pales in comparison to their later polished work when they were established Hollywood filmmakers with a well-oiled machine and a big budget and star power.
For example: James Cameron's first film he directed was Piranha II: The Spawning. Alfred Hitchcock's first film was The Pleasure Garden. Steven Spielberg's first film was Amblin'. Stanley Kubrick's first film was Fear and Desire. Francis Ford Coppola's first film was Bellboy and the Playgirls. David Fincher's first film was Alien 3.
They all went on to bigger and better things, except Snyder. He went further and further backwards as his directing career "progressed"!