X-Men: The Last Stand
Grade: |
 |
Plot Summary:
War threatens to break out between the human and mutant population over a mutant 'cure'. As if that wasn't enough, one former member of the X-Men has returned...a little different than before. Much mass disintegration ensues...
Opinion:
Fans of the X-Men series were preparing for the worst when word came that Bryan Singer--director of the first two X-Men movies--had left to helm the new Superman movie for another studio, and was replaced by Brett Ratner ("Rush Hour", "Rush Hour 2"). A troubled production was rushed to completion in order to "beat" Superman into theaters, leading one to believe that the (ostensibly) last X-Men movie would be a quick cash-grab with no appreciable quality, akin to Disney's direct-to-DVD animated sequels.
X3 is not a masterpiece--it's easily the weakest of the series--but neither is it the comic book equivalent of "Cinderella II". Fans will likely be doubly disappointed--once because it's not a complete success, and again because it's not a complete failure that they can complain endlessly about, either. (Everyone knows comic book fans LOVE to tear bad movies apart...) X3 will have to settle for being 'middle of the road'--not good enough to embrace unreservedly, but still entertaining enough not to be dismissed and forgotten about either.
The change of directors caused a lot of headlines, but turns out to be meaningless on the screen--Ratner's direction is fine, and it's doubtful anyone who hadn't heard the production stories beforehand would be able to tell the person behind the camera was different. More significant to the actual film is that Bryan Singer happened also to take his X1/X2 screenwriters to Superman with him, and their X3 replacements are where the greatest drop-off occurs. The X3 screenplay is, well...not very good. Not that it's mundane and unoriginal, mind you--the problem is actually there's too MUCH going on, and the screenplay does not adequately allow all the good ideas (or characters) to breathe and maximize their full potential. There are probably three different stories within "The Last Stand" that could have carried a full-length movie on their own (the cure, Dark Phoenix, and the general conflict between humans and mutants). Instead we have a lot of content packed into only an 100 minute movie, and most of the potentially great ideas are underdeveloped and unfulfilling. The first two movies already pushed the limit of the number of characters you could fit into a two-hour time span before the law of diminishing returns causes the quality of characters to decrease. X3 packs even MORE new characters (many of whom aren't even named) into such a small space that they are barely have time for a line of dialogue before departing. (One imagines the marketing department wanting to put stickers on the X3 movie posters saying: "NOW with 50% MORE mutants!") Add to that some old regulars (Mystique, Cyclops, and Colossus, to name a few) that have such small, meaningless parts, it's almost criminal. (One--Nightcrawler--never shows up at all...)
The consequences of a rushed production are evident in places as well. The special effects are less than sharp in some places, and one scene cuts immediately from day to night with no continuity. One important subplot involving Rogue is given so little screen time at its resolution that you wonder whether some key scenes got accidentally left on the cutting room floor. Another involving Angel and his father is not resolved at all... Jean Grey as the Dark Phoenix (a phenomenally important story arc within the X-Men comic universe) feels terribly abridged--something akin to watching a 60-minute version of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, where they may hit the beginning and end events properly, but it's missing any sort of epic scope... The screenplay itself feels rushed and incomplete, with many weak sections of dialogue that really need a rewrite or two. (We're talking almost Star Wars Episode I quality, here...and that's not a compliment).
Despite all this, there is much to recommend X3 as well. Hugh Jackman's Wolverine has a charisma and a screen presence that cannot be muted by so-so plotting and dialogue. The ideas and conflicts of X3, while underdeveloped, are still unique and thought-provoking enough to hold your attention. The action scenes are decent, and the filmmakers' willingness to eliminate primary characters is admirable (even if the execution is still less than perfect...) X3 is still worth a view, even at the same time you might be saddened at its lost potential.
Content Analysis: (2-2-3-0 on the Baron's PSVD scale)
X3 seemed to be actually less violent than its predecessors in terms of brutality. (Wolverine still gets the worst of it, as usual, because he's a quick healer.) Some language and a (clothed) make-out scene amount to the scope of X3's PG-13 rating.
In-depth Analysis:
In the software world, there's a saying: "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" Said with differing levels of seriousness when the user experience is different than expected, it means simply 'No, I'm not going to fix it. That's just how it is. Deal with it..."
Physical bodies come with a variety of characteristics--fatness, shortness, big noses, baldness, etc... And some have less natural capabilities than others, ranging from differing levels of talent and intellect, to actual physical and mental disabilities. And yet even the word 'disability' is in the eye of the beholder. Are physical deformities--even including serious birth defects--bugs or features? Ostensibly, having no sense of hearing is a 'defect', yet there are some in the deaf community who are offended and opposed to those members who attempt to augment their hearing using technological means--and thus fit in to 'hearing' society. (In one extreme case I'm aware of, a deaf parent purposely destroyed the hearing of their normal child in order to keep him/her included in their group)
The attitude is clearly: "It's not a bug, it's a feature". Physical attributes or shortcomings are not something that should be lamented and 'fixed', but accepted and embraced as part of that person's unique identity.
The idea of a 'cure' for mutants plays into this same question--are mutations bugs or features? Clearly the answer depends on the person--not only the specific manifestation of their power, but also their attitude towards it. Some powers are more useful (and controllable) than others. It's much easier for Magneto or Iceman to fit into 'normal' society (should they want to), but not so easy for someone like Nightcrawler or Beast. Why wouldn't Rogue consider taking the cure herself? Her mutant ability has limited utility, cannot be controlled, and is actively detrimental to her desires for happiness. Regrettably, the movie cheats on this idea by turning the cure almost immediately into a weapon that is used against mutants involuntarily, and takes very little time exploring the social ramifications of whether mutants should or should not choose to be cured and why. The resolution to Rogue's story is given very little time--as are many deep ideas within the movie. There should have been at least one more scene with Iceman and Rogue together, exploring the fallout of her decision on her life and their relationship...
Checking in with the "mutants = gays" analogy central to the X-Men series: the reliance on biology as an explanation for homosexual attraction is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it (partially) protects gays from the standard argument that same-sex attraction is merely a lifestyle choice--the primary reason gays grasp onto biological explanations of SSA whenever possible. But, on the other hand, having a biological basis for homosexuality opens up the possibility of a biological solution. If the factors behind SSA can be identified within the human body, why couldn't they be treated and eliminated (i.e. 'cured'), as with most other physical or mental conditions? If SSA is caused largely by a physiologically identifiable hormone imbalance (for example), what if a specialized form of hormone therapy was shown to be effective at removing it? What if homosexuality had a cure?
This leads to the same pressing question as above: is SSA something that should be lamented and 'fixed', or accepted and glorified? The answer to this question, again, depends on who you are. Many Latter-Day Saints who struggle with SSA might find the idea of a 'cure' very attractive--allowing them to pursue their eternal goals under the Plan of Salvation without having a major roadblock in their path. Many in the gay community (as with the deaf or mutant communities) would reject the idea of a 'cure'--saying it is merely a feature of our existence that should be embraced--and oppose those who would seek to abandon this natural attribute in favor of 'fitting in'. It would have been nice if X3 dealt with this question more fully, but raising the question at all is still significant...
Random Notes & Comments:
(1) There is a tack-on scene after the end-credits which--to be honest--is a cheat and I'd probably encourage you to skip it. The scene right before the end credits is also, to a lesser extent...
(2) There likely will not be an "X4", although separate prequel movies for both Wolverine and a young Magneto are currently in the planning stages.
