X Men First Class, or: an X-men movie that doesn't suck

[stefan]

I mean, sure, there are some pretty cringetacular bits, but those are mostly in the first half and the rest of the movie is either fantastic scenes of characterization/mutant violence or kevin bacon baconing around in a funny hat. all in all, it was a vast improvement over X3 and wolverine origins, as well as, from what I understand, telling both of those movies to fuck off by way of deliberately contradicting some of the scenes in them.

I almost kind of feel bad for liking this movie though, since so long as fox keeps making successful X-men movies then we'll never see the X-men in the marvel movieverse.

[Kerensky287]

I just saw it today, I really enjoyed it. I haven't seen X3 in ages, so I don't remember how/if that was contradicted away, and I didn't pay enough attention to Wolverine Origins to notice shit about that, but I'd be 0kay with pretending those movies never existed.

A few things I didn't like, though: Near the end, when the massive missile barrage/shelling happens, why didn't Charles just use his telepathy to send the same message Miss CIA Agent was trying to get across? As a bonus, he could've sent it to the Russians as well.

It also felt WAY too campy at times. Young Erik's "Big Nein" at the start was one of them. Old Erik's "I prefer Magneto" at the end was another. In fact, the only point at which the codenames actually felt like they fit was when they were thinking them up in the first place, because that's totally what some drunken teenagers would do.

Other than that, there were just a few parts that didn't make sense, like Hank McCoy's mutant feet somehow giving him superspeed during 5 seconds of the training montage. And, well, Ginger McSoundwave's ability to somehow fly by shouting at the ground didn't hold water with me either, especially because it apparently required the use of his flying squirrel suit and yet he could fly perfectly well while one of his arms was occupied by carrying a person.

On the plus side, the characterizations were top-notch, Erik's turn to the dark side felt completely natural, and the action scenes were great as well. It's definitely worth a watch.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I caught this at the midnight showing and I loved it. Honestly can't think of a single thing I didn't like. I'm really happy about comic book movies starting to wear their origins on their sleeves. This felt like the first real X-Men movie. The costumes weren't shit and the team actually worked as a team. Can't say that for the previous films.

And Magneto stole the whole movie. I mean, holy shit! Fassbender was awesome in this. McAvoy, too. They both had great chemistry and it sold the friendship that they had. In fact, the whole cast was pretty great.

The only thing about the movie that didn't quite work for me was Magneto's costume at the end. I liked it but it didn't really fit. I really hope that we can get a sequel to this with the same creative team behind it. Vaughn is the only guy that should be allowed to direct an X-Men movie.

And I'm pretty sure I'm going to never forget the scene where Erik slowly forces a Nazi coin through Shaw/Xavier's head. That was surprisingly graphic and proved that Xavier was a serious badass.

[Arhra]

It's like the better elements of the X-men films collided with a Bond film! In the sixties!

'Twas pretty good.

Couldn't help but feel the good guys were a little outgunned though. Xavier and Erik were the heavyweights and everyone else on that team was... just kinda there.

You know, compared to the squad of persons of mass destruction led by the HUMAN ATOMIC BOMB.

The training was absolutely hilarious though.

[Nique]

Everything felt really a little bit too modern to be set in the 1960s. Also TONS of contradictions between this film and every other X-men film so far.

Loved the Hugh Jackman Cameo.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

TONS of contradictions between this film and every other X-men film so far.

I'm so cool with this. As far as I'm concerned, everything else was shit compared to this.

[Nique]

True. BUT! It's still part of Fox's licensing or franchise or whatever so you'd think they wouldn't allow these sort of inconsistencies. I mean, there are huge glaring contradictions not just some tiny maybe-this-could-work-ones.

Unless they have worked out a deal with fox that this film is going to somehow be incorporated with or be the link between marvel's current 'movieverse' and the previous X-men movies, I see this film as being totally confusing.

[BloodyMage]

They're not really going to care though, because the last two films were failures, and if they don't keep making X-Men films, then they lose the franchise, so it seems like 'let's make an awesome film regardless of the old fanbase that will make people like X-Men movies again.'

[The Sevenshot Kid]

They're not really going to care though, because the last two films were failures, and if they don't keep making X-Men films, then they lose the franchise, so it seems like 'let's make an awesome film regardless of the old fanbase that will make people like X-Men movies again.'

Exactly. And the film was much stronger because of that.

To be perfectly honest, the other X-Men movies weren't all that great. Aside from some great casting they didn't really have anything too good going for them. And this film fixed my major complaint about the other ones, the team did shit! For once it wasn't, "Let's send in one guy to save the day while we kind of watch!" but instead, "This shit is serious, pull your goddamn weight!"

The X-Men were goddamn X-Men for once with costumes that didn't look like shit and bonafide teamwork. Havok and Beast were awesome together and I hope to see their friendship evolve over the course of another film!

Anyone who walks out of this film unhappy either has their expectations way too high or shouldn't even be watching this type of movie.

[Magus]

I didn't like it very much. Is it better than Origins: Wolverine? Yes (but maybe no), but not by much (and maybe not by much, in fact maybe its worse, I haven't decided yet), and has its own logical inconsistencies and just plain sloppy writing.

The quality of X-Men films seems directly proportional to the amount of mutants present, because instead of focusing on the plot they focus on trying to explain each of these mutant's powers and give them a modicum of development (and fail). In this one there were way too many that I could care less about. Character development? There was very little except for the main characters, so why bother with all the extras, especially since half of them were made up (I can only assume that the fairy girl who spits fireballs was made up, anyway, since it is just so terrible and she had the same name as another character in another movie who could also fly, and the guy who is a Nightcrawler rip-off seemed included simply as a plot device to explain why Sebastian Shaw is absolutely everywhere...but then so are all the other characters so why bother to explain it? Darwin was by far the worst mutant idea, though the character himself was at least moderately charming, the power was kind of silly...)? In fact characters we might like to see discovering their powers are just straight-up given their powers from the get-go, such as Xavier and Mystique (BTW naked child Mystique is just creepy. Also that whole scene was silly. Why go to some rural mansion to steal food? But anyway)

There were some good scenes, true. Magneto was fairly compelling, and the scene where he decimates those Nazis in that bar was good in a "haha they sure had it coming to them" way, not to mention a coolness factor of how he uses his power. The final scene with the coin was also good since it harkens back to the beginning and again delivers that "haha take that you bastard" feeling (even though it creates inconsistencies with exactly how the powers work...see below) and was stylistically interesting.

However, pretty much every other scene was quite terrible, with poor pacing. They seemed extremely rushed and awkward, just to create a needlessly complicated story. Why is Sebastian Shaw so ridiculously mustache-twirling in the first scene and not all the rest? Since when the heck was Xavier responsible for Mystique's upbringing (especially since in the establishing scene, he is what, two years older than her at most? Not exactly a father figure, besides being a ridiculous addition to the background story)? Why are we told that Xavier and Magneto were best of buddies at university and formed a deep friendship but this movie takes place over maybe a month or two at best (seriously, there is, as expected, a long montage scene where the mutants master their powers and gain intense skill in them First Class[/B]...I think a better title would be First Lesson after seeing the ending, but that's way too subtle an idea for whoever wrote this, I'm sure...], and it seems like this must be where Xavier and Magneto were forging their deep friendship...but then we are told at the end of the montage that it has only been a week. Blorp).

I actually went into this movie presuming that Sebastian Shaw's ultimate goal was fairly greedy and down-to-earth (in a way): start a nuclear war so that he can absorb the energy released and become godlike. I even figured he was somehow responsible for Hiroshima or something, after we are shown him as a Nazi. Instead he starts out godlike and nigh-immortal (and boring, outside the initial scene), even replete with a giant cruise ship with escape submarine (no need to go out of his way to absorb nuclear energy by starting wars, just step into the core), lackies, millions of dollars, etc. Very Bond-villainish. His ultimate goal is very nebulous: destroy the world's governments so he can rise as the ruler of all humanity. This seems shoehorned in just so he can give Magneto ideas (oh, and the helmet. Don't forget the helmet...god so stupid looking. Whoever made the original X-Men movie back in 2001 or whatever would have been far smarter to make it a simple metal circlet or something, even if it deviated from the comic, since they don't seem to be afraid of doing that...) Sebastian Shaw's power is vague but basically he can absorb energy (the movie ignores that there are different kinds of energy, but be assure that Shaw can absorb any kind, kinetic, thermal, nuclear, whatever). However, there is a logical inconsistency with this power that we the viewer have to explain to ourselves, as the movie doesn't bother: in the end he is killed by a simple coin to the brain. Apparently Shaw has to have [I]freedom of movement to absorb energy, which is accompanied by this weird "splitting" special effect, which at least is somewhat related to the whole "splitting the atom" theme, so maybe he's splitting all his atoms or something zany like that, to absorb the energy...however if you don't put two and two together you just get a weird scene where for some reason he is suddenly vulnerable because he is frozen despite being indestructible throughout.

Other powers are inconsistent as well. For example, Emma Frost can turn her skin to diamond. However for some reason it can be shattered by some probably fairly sub-par iron from a bedstead as long as you squeeze hard enough...yeah makes no sense to me either.... Nightcrawler rip-off guy can teleport anywhere anytime despite an earlier movie explaining that this is super-dangerous (maybe he's had more training than Nightcrawler, but you'd have to mention that in the movie, not just have me explain away the inconsistency myself.) As mentioned earlier, Darwin's ability really makes no sense and just seems a catch-all thing for a few particular scenes.

Also, the character development of Beast is really stupid. I mean just seriously stupid. So stupid...this reminds me suddenly of how awkward the whole assigning codenames scene was. "Hey, we should all have codenames! ...I think we should call you Professor X despite that not having a lot to do with how we developed all the other codenames!" There is something wrong with movies when I feel embarrassed watching them, and this movie had so many cringe-worthy scenes that it outweighed the jubilation at the few good ones. I feel sorry for all the big name actors involved. This movie could have had a much better plot and been written much better while still involving X-Men. Heck if they had just slowed the pace down slightly instead of trying to cram in as much crap as possible it would have probably come off half-way decent. It's sad that it was just a showcase for a really bad plot line and confusing themes...

Oh, and ruining Beast. I mean seriously. Beast was one of the better more interesting X-Men, this movie just ruined the character quite horribly. I probably should have just mentioned that as my reason for disliking the movie and not bothered with all that other stuff. I mean, seriously, no one can see your feet unless you take your shoes off, dumbass. No need to feel so damn uptight about it. If the character had started out with blue fur everywhere (another inconsistency, since if I remember correctly in the first three movies, he developed the fur sometime in between the second and third one...) it would at least be understandable, but the whole Dr. Jekyll thing was stupid and a needless addition, as well as making his horror at his initial appearance seem incredibly underwhelming to the viewer.

As for "inconsistencies with past movies don't matter" I would agree (well not really but maybe) IF this were being set up as a reboot. It isn't, though. It's just sloppy writing on somebody's part, as far as I can tell.

EDIT: And no, I actually had low expectations and enjoy this type of movie. Case in point: I really enjoyed Thor. And no, it can't be because the plot was so much better or that it didn't have logical inconsistencies or bad character development because Thor certainly had problems in those departments...I think the strength of Thor and pretty much any other good movie comes from some basic factors that would do anyone attempting to write a movie good: 1. focus on a few basic characters and develop them in depth, 2. have only a few settings, 3. don't try to cram too many plot devices and "cool scenes" into the movie just because it would be cool to see, and 4. don't try to cram too many themes or lessons into the movie. This movie had like, twenty, Thor had one, maybe two.

There's no one thing about this movie that is really terrible (well, the writing seemed kind of bad or at least the pacing, plus needless scenes...never mind), but the sum of all its parts didn't really add up to something really enjoyable, for some reason...

[Lumenskir]

This movie satisfied my only requirement* for a summer blockbuster in spades. Recommended, but not mandatory.

*It moved like a motherfucker.
True. BUT! It's still part of Fox's licensing or franchise or whatever so you'd think they wouldn't allow these sort of inconsistencies. I mean, there are huge glaring contradictions not just some tiny maybe-this-could-work-ones.

Unless they have worked out a deal with fox that this film is going to somehow be incorporated with or be the link between marvel's current 'movieverse' and the previous X-men movies, I see this film as being totally confusing.
Pretty sure I read somewhere that this was a reboot of the franchise disguised as a prequel.

If not, just stop being a nerd.

[Magus]

If it's really a reboot, it basically failed entirely at "rebooting" the franchise since there is zero exposition on the fact that hey there are all these mutants and they hide in our society and etc. etc. There is no set-up, the movie just starts and assumes you know all about the X-Men universe via the other 4 movies.

The first movie for instance has Wolverine wandering around, runs into a couple of mutants, then he finds out there are more like him, probably about half the movie is just setting up the universe.

So it's certainly not a reboot...as for being a huge nerd, well, yes! But I dislike the fact that it moved so quickly, I wanted it to have slower scenes and less of them. So I hate the fact that it moved like a motherfucker.

[Lumenskir]

If it's really a reboot, it basically failed entirely at "rebooting" the franchise since there is zero exposition on the fact that hey there are all these mutants and they hide in our society and etc. etc.
You do realize that "Show don't tell" is a tenet of storytelling right? Do you really need somebody to stare at the camera and say some magic words when the character's actions in the movie (Raven always looking like fine-ass Jennifer Lawrence, Beast hiding his feet until in the presence of people he trusts, Shaw's gang only revealing their nature to people they then kill or coerce, etc.) speak to the points you're trying to make.

And seeing as mutants in the movie seem to be a relatively new phenomenon (to the government at least), the eventual metaphor-laden "Segregation and hiding of true nature" storylines can start later.
But I dislike the fact that it moved so quickly, I wanted it to have slower scenes and less of them. So I hate the fact that it moved like a motherfucker.
Nah. Summer movies, especially superhero movies, are measured by how long they can distract you from the fact that what you're watching is inherently ridiculous. You should never really stop asking "What happens next?" lest you hit a snag scene and start grumbling "What the fuck is this?"

[Magus]

Yes, what this movie did was definitely show-don't-tell, very subtle stuff going on here.

[Nique]

If not, just stop being a nerd.

If this sort of thing happened in a major film series of ANY other genre, it wouldn't just be nerds crying foul and everyone involved would be chastized for allowing such glaring inconsistencies that take you out of the story.

For me I just think there's something to be said for making their intentions with this movie clear becuase I am totally on board for rebooting X-Men, I just don't want them to pretend that this pretty excellent movie is part of the same series as X3: Mutants Take Manhattan San Francisco.

[Magus]

Except that this movie basically has all the same faults as that movie? It's not really computing to me. I think people who disliked X3 didn't watch it in the ensuing years and so they forgot what they didn't like about it.

[Lumenskir]

If this sort of thing happened in a major film series of ANY other genre, it wouldn't just be nerds crying foul and everyone involved would be chastized for allowing such glaring inconsistencies that take you out of the story.

For me I just think there's something to be said for making their intentions with this movie clear becuase I am totally on board for rebooting X-Men, I just don't want them to pretend that this pretty excellent movie is part of the same series as X3: Mutants Take Manhattan San Francisco.
Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but how exactly do you pronounce that its a reboot within the movie? Star Trek did it with time travel (and even then I still had to explain to my mom why it wasn't a part of the series she grew up watching), but what is the accepted way outside of that?

[Nique]

Not using footage from previous X-Men films in your promo material would be a good start.

Except that this movie basically has all the same faults as that movie? It's not really computing to me. I think people who disliked X3 didn't watch it in the ensuing years and so they forgot what they didn't like about it.

No I felt like First Class was objectively better even though it wasn't perfect. X3 suffered from a weak story, bad directing, lazy special FX, overcooked ideas from the previous films, and a bloated cast. First Class at the very least attempted to explore Xavier and Magneto's characters in an interesting way, among other strengths.

[Magus]

Reintroduce us to the universe and characters instead of assuming we already know who and what they are and how it all works. Reintroduce the whole concept that your story is based on.

EDIT: I mean shit just the Hugh Jackman as Wolverine cameo shows us it isn't a reboot. What if The Dark Knight had Batman trying to track down the Joker and he runs into Danny DeVito as the Penguin, are we supposed to assume this is a separate series?

[Kerensky287]

Reintroduce us to the universe and characters instead of assuming we already know who and what they are and how it all works. Reintroduce the whole concept that your story is based on.

EDIT: I mean shit just the Hugh Jackman as Wolverine cameo shows us it isn't a reboot. What if The Dark Knight had Batman trying to track down the Joker and he runs into Danny DeVito as the Penguin, are we supposed to assume this is a separate series?

I didn't get the feeling it was a reboot. I thought it was just a prequel that ignored X3 and Wolverine Origins. Either way, they introduced the universe and characters well enough, I thought - they made it clear Magneto controls metal, Charles is a telepath, etc. They also laid out the idea of mutations, the idea that the government doesn't totally know about them yet, and so on. I figure future additions will get going on the racism allegory, considering that First Class ended with Charles making sure only the mutants knew about the mutants.

And reboots don't necessarily have to have different characters, either. Judi Dench plays M both before and after Casino Royale, for example, so saying "it isn't a reboot because X actor plays Y character" doesn't make any sense.

[Nique]

Reintroduce us to the universe and characters instead of assuming we already know who and what they are and how it all works. Reintroduce the whole concept that your story is based on.

Yes, good point! In fact, didn't the first X-Men film open up with a monologue about how Mutant's were coming into existence? Something like that would have been good to add, but, obviously, in a different way.

And also that scene featuring young Erik being separated from his parents in a concentration camp that was also re-filmed shot-for-shot for First Class? Like, this film is screaming that it is trying to be present withing the same continuity as the other X-Men films when all the important parts of that are missing.

I thought it was just a prequel that ignored X3 and Wolverine Origins.

And X-Men and X2.

[Kerensky287]

And X-Men and X2.

I haven't heard that there was anything that directly contradicted those two, but I guess that makes sense. They're making sequels to X3, after all. (http://screenrant.com/x-men-4-5-development-rob-108012/)

My hope, then, is that they do something in the sequel to First Class to make it clear that it's an alternate continuity similar to the previously mentioned Star Trek reboot.

EDIT: Hey, if Bryan Singer (the director of all the good X-men movies) is coming back for X4 and X5, and he had some badass ideas for X3 (http://screenrant.com/bryan-singers-x-men-3-4-story-rob-34720/) that weren't used because it was handed off to the shitty director, maybe we can hope for the reveal in X4 that it was all just a dream? Or maybe they'll pull a trick from the comic books to bring everybody back to life and just undo what happened in X3?

[Nique]

I haven't heard that there was anything that directly contradicted those two, but I guess that makes sense.

Big important chunks of Charles and Erik's entire back story presented in X-Men 1, 2, 3 AND Wolverine Origins is flatly contradicted by this movie. Unless 'First Class' sequels show the Brotherhood and the X-Men genuinely working together for a while (which based in the final conflict from this movie seems unlikely and kind of stupid) there is just no good way to merge these stories.

[Magus]

Either way, they introduced the universe and characters well enough, I thought - they made it clear Magneto controls metal, Charles is a telepath, etc. They also laid out the idea of mutations, the idea that the government doesn't totally know about them yet, and so on. I figure future additions will get going on the racism allegory, considering that First Class ended with Charles making sure only the mutants knew about the mutants.

And reboots don't necessarily have to have different characters, either. Judi Dench plays M both before and after Casino Royale, for example, so saying "it isn't a reboot because X actor plays Y character" doesn't make any sense.

Well it certainly doesn't ignore Origins with the Wolverine scene, since the scene makes no sense/isn't funny if we know nothing about him and chronologically it's the only movie with anything happening before this one. So no matter how much you want to ignore the bad movies in the series and pretend they don't exist at least Origins is connected to this one, which would make Origins the reboot...

As for introducing/explaining the characters there was maybe two minutes of it in the whole movie so I don't really consider it a decent explanation.

Really I like to just figure all the movies happened in this universe, just the first two were good (since I didn't like this movie very much). It would be easier for all the people who like this movie to just figure they all happened but 3 and 4 sucked. That way you don't have to try and argue why it is a reboot which just adds another negative facet to it (since it makes a really bad reboot).

Big important chunks of Charles and Erik's entire back story presented in X-Men 1, 2, 3 AND Wolverine Origins is flatly contradicted by this movie

I prefer to think it just did a really poor job of establishing them as buddies. The movie goes out of its way to explain that Mystique has like super leukocytes so she ages at half the speed and that's why in the first 3 movies she's still young and so on and so forth--they seemed to be desperately trying to make it fit in with the established universe. Maybe the project started as a reboot but somebody changed their mind at some point in the process.

Whoever wrote it just screwed up on stuff. No one should be surprised...did you guys watch X-Men Origins, it was pretty bad? That this one is actually better (maybe) than that one is the real surprise, to me, anyway...

[Kerensky287]

Big important chunks of Charles and Erik's entire back story presented in X-Men 1, 2, 3 AND Wolverine Origins is flatly contradicted by this movie.

Not that I disagree, but are there any specific examples you could give? I haven't seen the good ones in ages and I've blocked out X3 and Origins due to trauma.

Well it certainly doesn't ignore Origins with the Wolverine scene, since the scene makes no sense/isn't funny if we know nothing about him and chronologically it's the only movie with anything happening before this one. So no matter how much you want to ignore the bad movies in the series and pretend they don't exist at least Origins is connected to this one, which would make Origins the reboot...

As for introducing/explaining the characters there was maybe two minutes of it in the whole movie so I don't really consider it a decent explanation.

Really I like to just figure all the movies happened in this universe, just the first two were good (since I didn't like this movie very much). It would be easier for all the people who like this movie to just figure they all happened but 3 and 4 sucked. That way you don't have to try and argue why it is a reboot which just adds another negative facet to it (since it makes a really bad reboot).

The Wolverine scene was just a cameo appearance for fans of the other movies. That shit happens all the time. In the Return of the Man from U.N.C.L.E, there's a car chase in which George Lazenby shows up in a heavily modified Aston Martin with a license plate bearing "JB". It's obviously a Bond reference (Bond was played by Lazenby at the time) but the two series weren't related in any way. The cameo in First Class proves nothing.

I'd say that the entire movie was actually predicated on the development of Charles and Erik. We see Charles' youth for a tiny bit, then we see him giving an honest damn about mutants, then we see him training his allies in the use of their own powers. We see Erik ruthlessly seeking revenge, never compromising and never accepting the idea that mutants should seamlessly merge into society. Those facts are hammered in CONSTANTLY. If there's one thing this movie does especially well, it's character development, so saying that the characters "aren't explained" is just silly.

I agree that it's a terrible reboot if that's what it is (and to be honest, that's what I'm hoping it turns out to be), but right now it just sort of nebulously floats around the border of canon. In the sequel to First Class, they might flip out and do something to split off, or they might do something to solidify its position as an official prequel. I can't say much either way, and I'll withhold judgment until I hear differently.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I'm sure that it'd take nothing short of Cable coming on-screen and declaring it an alternate universe in the sequel to satisfy some people. Which is something I'm all for. Fuck the other movies. This movie did what we've been begging a Superman reboot to do for us: skip the origin that we already know and get to the story.

[Lumenskir]

I think people who disliked X3 didn't watch it in the ensuing years and so they forgot what they didn't like about it.
I think FX has the ability to bend time to play that movie nonstop for like 26 hours a day. They've been doing it for the past 17 years, so if you have any form of basic cable odds are good X3 has popped up at some point.
Yes, good point! In fact, didn't the first X-Men film open up with a monologue about how Mutant's were coming into existence? Something like that would have been good to add, but, obviously, in a different way.
Yes, straight voiceover, that'd be great.

I mean, I get you might have wanted something more, but Xavier's entire character before getting CIA-ed was that mutations were happening in humans and that, as in the past, there would be some conflict when the newly evolved began to clash with the old humans, Shaw repeatedly said that they were "Children of the Atom" and that the atomic age was the cause of the mutations, etc. and etc.

I mean, I'm sticking to my "Moves like a motherfucker" preference, but did we really need to present all of the 'salient' information in an infodump, rather than parceling it out?
And also that scene featuring young Erik being separated from his parents in a concentration camp that was also re-filmed shot-for-shot for First Class? Like, this film is screaming that it is trying to be present withing the same continuity as the other X-Men films when all the important parts of that are missing.
And? I like Kerensky's point, just because element X from the pre-boot movies is present doesn't mean the reboot isn't a reboot. In Star Trek, either pre-boot or reboot, Kirk hacks the unwinnable battle simulator to win, in X-Men, either pre-boot or reboot, Magneto discovers his power while attempting to free his mother from Nazis.

And further...

Nah, fuck it, I'm getting drawn into nerdery.

More important point: Does Mystique's blue form not have a vagina? What exactly was Magneto planning on doing in bed with his insistence on blueness?

[Kerensky287]

More important point: Does Mystique's blue form not have a vagina? What exactly was Magneto planning on doing in bed with his insistence on blueness?

I think Mystique is a shapeshifter and can therefore decide for herself whether or not to have a vagina.

It'd probably help with the whole "nudity 24/7" thing.

[Magus]

I'd say that the entire movie was actually predicated on the development of Charles and Erik. We see Charles' youth for a tiny bit, then we see him giving an honest damn about mutants, then we see him training his allies in the use of their own powers. We see Erik ruthlessly seeking revenge, never compromising and never accepting the idea that mutants should seamlessly merge into society. Those facts are hammered in CONSTANTLY. If there's one thing this movie does especially well, it's character development, so saying that the characters "aren't explained" is just silly.

They aren't explained well. They spend two minutes on it. Character development takes more time than two minutes. (BTW we see Charles

Like take Charles. Why's he such a nice guy? Why is he nice to Mystique? Just because? Maybe they should talk about how since he can read people's minds he understands why they are mad/sad/happy whatever and so he's very empathetic. I have no idea if this is why, it's just some explanation I came up with for the character. The creators don't bother.

When does Magneto begin to make the symbolic connection between being a Jew and being a mutant? Why not have a scene in his younger days when he develops this analogy? He just comes out with that analogy at some point and then at the end when the U.S. and Russians both shoot at them for "no reason" (or maybe it's because they were like you know fighting and blowing shit up and assassinating the entire crew of a ship and so on, but anyway) he's just like "You see?! I was right!"

When was Mystique first shunned because of her appearance? When did Beast take his shoes off one time? Why is Alex Summers in jail? Who the fuck is Banshee? Why is Angel a stripper, anyway? Why does Emma Frost follow Sebastian Shaw? Why do his other two cronies never say anything the entire movie? What is tornado guy's name, anyway?

I think Mystique is a shapeshifter and can therefore decide for herself whether or not to have a vagina.

It'd probably help with the whole "nudity 24/7" thing.

Except we are told nine hundred times it is her "true" form. She is a woman.

Her naked form tastefully covers her nipples/labia with scales as a cinematic affectation to make it PG-13, nothing more. In the comics she always wore a white dress, for some reason with the X-Men movies they decided it would be hotter if she was sort of naked but not really.

I mean shit she didn't even have scales in the comic, just blue skin.

EDIT:

BTW how are they "the child of the atom" when both Magneto and Shaw are both mutants before Horoshima happens? I think he was making some kind of stupid analogy, not explaining the origins of the new mutations, which presumably they were born with and which didn't appear until puberty (like with the other movies).

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Can we talk about something we probably all agree on? Like how awesome that third act was. Say what you will about the first two, but this movie delivered in the end like no other X-Men film before it.

[Lumenskir]

In the comics she always wore a white dress, for some reason with the X-Men movies they decided it would be hotter if she was sort of naked but not really.
Man, if you can't agree that it's objectively better to see Jennifer Lawrence's body in body paint rather than a "true" to the comics white dress...I dunno, nerdery rampant or something.

Again, more important points: How badass was the bar scene where Magneto stabbed the guy's hand, did a great knife throw-then-retract, then stabbed the guy's hand again. Like, all the baddass, I think.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Again, more important points: How badass was the bar scene where Magneto stabbed the guy's hand, did a great knife throw-then-retract, then stabbed the guy's hand again. Like, all the baddass, I think.

Or right before when he slowly turned his arm over to reveals his prison camp tattoo. The tension in my theater was thick enough to cut with a knife.

[Lumenskir]

Really, my only complaint about the bar scene is that when I see Fassbender speaking in German with a drink in his hand I automatically assume he's about ten minutes from ordering someone to blow a Nazi's balls off, and if he doesn't there's a small emptiness inside of me.

[Kerensky287]

Really, my only complaint about the bar scene is that when I see Fassbender speaking in German with a drink in his hand I automatically assume he's about ten minutes from ordering someone to blow a Nazi's balls off, and if he doesn't there's a small emptiness inside of me.

Oh my god I KNEW I recognized him from somewhere! Man, that is a guy who knows how to fuck up Nazis.

[Magus]

Yes, I liked that scene. I liked the final scene (not really the battle because I could care less about all those other mutants as mentioned, but the final part with Magneto/Shaw/Xavier). I liked when Not-Nightcrawler dropped those dudes (not the rest of the scene but that part). I liked when Shaw was mustache-twirling and wish he'd kept that up instead of falling back into having no personality whatsoever.

I also liked...actually I think that's it? Those were the only parts I liked...oh wait I think there was that one scene with Havok where he was learning to control his power, I remember laughing at that.

EDIT:

Man, if you can't agree that it's objectively better to see Jennifer Lawrence's body in body paint rather than a "true" to the comics white dress...I dunno, nerdery rampant or something.

I was just replying to your question as to why she doesn't have a vagina despite being naked, which is that they wanted to sex up the character while not showing any actual nudity.

And no, actually, Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique form wasn't really doing anything for me like Rebecca Romijn's Mystique form did...probably due to the creepy scene of the character as a child.

Oh and if I remember correctly the body-paint looked better in the first three movies. I think the budget for this movie was slightly lower than the older ones (not sure though).

[Nique]

just because element X

If we're having a discussion about how a film can firmly acknowledge itself as a reboot of a franchise without beating the audience over the head with it (Star Trek did this, kind of, but they can get away with cause y'know, Time Travels), retaining exact scenes from previous films is not the way to go. See the Bond films or, yeah, Nolan's Batman movies to see what I mean.

That scene wasn't just a basic 'element' they included becuase it's an important part of the story - They retained elements like this with the film series I just mentioned as well. The problem was that it was literally the same scene. Like, I was totally fine with the Hugh Jackman cameo becuase it was just fun and not important to the story, but that concentration camp scene was pretty clearly attempting to link this film to the original X-Men film.

Also knock off the 'nerdery' thing. If you don't want to have this discussion I get that, but please don't pretend that this is a debate about the merits of obscure bits of comic book lore ... It is very much a discussion about good movie making, or at the very least, consistent writing.

Not that I disagree, but are there any specific examples you could give? I haven't seen the good ones in ages and I've blocked out X3 and Origins due to trauma.

This is totally going to undermine my above argument, but I'll go ahead and list a few things from memory. Again, it doesn't really bother me that these differences exist, I just don't want to waste my time on a film series that can't be bothered to keep it's story at least somewhat straight, otherwise what's the point?

In X-Men, Prof. X indicates that him and Magneto were partners for quite a long time before he went rouge. This is also indicated in X3 when Charles and Erik visit a young Jean Grey. First Class contradicts this at the film's finale when the Brotherhood is formed. Charles also expresses surprise in the first film when Magneto can block his telepathy, as though the helmet was a new invention - this is clearly contradicted when Erik acquires the helmet from a dead Shaw at the end of First Class.

Charles is shot and paralyzed by a deflected bullet at the end of First Class. During the young Jean scene of X3, a much older Charles is shown walking.

Hank McCoy is scene in a brief cameo during X-Men or X2 as a normal looking dude, so we assume that his physical transformation took place between those movies and X3. In first class he causes his own physical transformation with a seruma he developed.

First class takes place during the early 60s. At this time, Emma Frost is seen as an adult in, at least, her early 20s. In Wolverine Origins which takes place during the 70s or 80s (maybe even the 90s), she is shown as a teenager.

[Lumenskir]

Also knock off the 'nerdery' thing. If you don't want to have this discussion I get that, but please don't pretend that this is a debate about the merits of obscure bits of comic book lore, it's very much a discussion about good movie making.
No, 'good movie making' would talk about whether the pacing was off, the special effects were distracting, or the character's motivations made sense. Me and Magus disagree somewhat in regards to this aspect of the movie, as he wanted a movie that went a little more in depth with the character motivations and such, and I wanted a movie that barreled between action scenes so fast you didn't have time to ask about the last kind of stupid thing you saw. It's a conversation about the movie itself.

Whether it's a reboot or a prequel, and what that means for continuity, is inherent nerdery because you're expecting every little detail across four movies and three directors to match up and claiming that the individual movie is lessened when it doesn't comply with what you were expecting from the other movies.

ALSO: While I understand that the chest thing was necessary to focus Havoc's power, I really liked how cool the "crazy hula hoop" aspect of his power was.

[Nique]

No, 'good movie making' would talk about whether the pacing was off, the special effects were distracting, or the character's motivations made sense. Me and Magus disagree somewhat in regards to this aspect of the movie, as he wanted a movie that went a little more in depth with the character motivations and such, and I wanted a movie that barreled between action scenes so fast you didn't have time to ask about the last kind of stupid thing you saw. It's a conversation about the movie itself.

A lot of which hinges on whether this is, in fact, a reboot or not.

... or the character's motivations made sense ...

If this movie is part of the existing X-Men series, which is exactly how it's being billed, then no, the character's motivations don't make sense. Like, at all.

[Lumenskir]

Had something longer typed up, but that way nerdery lies.

Basically, I think it's safe to say we have a "This Movie" v. "Movie Series" schism between us.

"This Movie" was a fun enough romp that made sense from the beginning to end of its own screen time.

The "Movie Series" might have some continuity rifts that make "This Movie" harder to enjoy on a plot level, but that's what you get with four movies, three directors, and so on.

I can easily accept that this movie is a reboot, is its own creature, and is delightful as a summer movie.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

ALSO: While I understand that the chest thing was necessary to focus Havoc's power, I really liked how cool the "crazy hula hoop" aspect of his power was.

Goddamnit! You just reminded me of a complaint I have about the movie... Havok's powers are done wrong. In the comics it's a concussive force not a fiery laser. But the other movies did almost the same thing with Cyclops so I'm not sure whether they did this to further tie him to movie Cyclops.

[Nique]

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7963/comicbookguyy.gif

[BloodyMage]

The "Movie Series" might have some continuity rifts that make "This Movie" harder to enjoy on a plot level, but that's what you get with four movies, three directors, and so on.

Isn't plot inherently important to good movie making?

Goddamnit! You just reminded me of a complaint I have about the movie... Havok's powers are done wrong. In the comics it's a concussive force not a fiery laser. But the other movies did almost the same thing with Cyclops so I'm not sure whether they did this to further tie him to movie Cyclops.

Havok is done wrong all together.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Havok is done wrong all together.

I never actually liked Havok in the comics to begin with so this was a major improvement for me.

[Kim]

Isn't plot inherently important to good movie making?

I'd argue that depends on the movie. Also, he seems to be saying that the problem with this movie's plot aren't the fault of the movie itself, but rather that it didn't make itself a slave to the plots of other terrible movies by other directors, and thus that it shouldn't reflect on the quality of this movie, which I think is an entirely reasonable opinion to have, even if you don't agree with it.

[Lumenskir]

Isn't plot inherently important to good movie making?
Well, sure, but my point was that the only 'plot' that was messed up was "The Movie Series", not "This Movie". First Class has a decent enough plot, I can't speak to how all five* hold together.

*I know I kept saying four, but I guess we're including Wolverine's movie in the count? Or rather, the Wolverine movie that actually had Wolverine in the title.

Also, again, "Moves like a motherfucker" is my only real criteria. Usually that means "Just enough, AND NO MORE, plot that is necessary to explain why the awesome thing currently on screen is happening."

EDIT: Yeah, what NonCon said.
Havoc/k Stuff
Stuff blowing up and then catching fire is just inherently better to look at than "Guy gets thrown back".

[BloodyMage]

Ah, I guess I just misunderstood what you meant by 'harder to enjoy on a plot level'. Carry on as you were.

[MFD]

Haven't seen it yet. Was just checking on reviews... But...

Um. One of your points makes no sense. You wanted the movie to explain why Charles was such a nice guy? Really? He can't just BE nice? We should explain who Angel is (comic canon, dude, everyone you don't know is a C-lister on the comics), but not spend so much time on the unimportant characters? Like, they're there to round out the team. They're red shirts, maybe? Comics fans will squee, but not knowing who they are shouldn't affect the movie experience. I didn't blink an eye at Barton, the crossbow sniper in Thor. Completely didn't recognize Hawkeye. Still enjoyed the movie.

I don't understand the whole Beast's feet thing, so I won't comment.

[Magus]

Haven't seen it yet. Was just checking on reviews... But...

Um. One of your points makes no sense. You wanted the movie to explain why Charles was such a nice guy? Really? He can't just BE nice? We should explain who Angel is (comic canon, dude, everyone you don't know is a C-lister on the comics), but not spend so much time on the unimportant characters? Like, they're there to round out the team. They're red shirts, maybe? Comics fans will squee, but not knowing who they are shouldn't affect the movie experience. I didn't blink an eye at Barton, the crossbow sniper in Thor. Completely didn't recognize Hawkeye. Still enjoyed the movie.

I don't understand the whole Beast's feet thing, so I won't comment.

Well this post is probably gonna spoil stuff for you since you haven't seen it yet (not sure why you want to get into minutiae when you haven't seen a flick, I often pick on things that look bad when I haven't seen them, true, but usually go no farther than "man this looks bad"), but anyway--

Beast is filled with PAIN and RAGE and DARKNESS...because he has weird feet. He doesn't get blue fur until the third act (it's a really bad costume, by the way). Also he is kind of lame and unsure of himself. I know that's in keeping with the fact that these are supposed to be the early-20s versions of the characters but still, this is Beast when he is lame instead of cool, apparently. I didn't need to know he was lame at some point (not that I think he ever was but they needed some mutants to fill this out)

And no, Angel in this movie is not the same Angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Worthington_III) I am familiar with, anyway. One is a stripper chick with fairy wings who spits fireballs (a pure invention of this movie, I believe, as the idea is pretty bad), the other is a rich guy with feathery angelic wings (who wasn't even born during this movie's time frame, though putting him in it would have helped establish it as a reboot instead of the poorly thought out prequel that all evidence points to it being).

As for explaining why Charles is a nice dude, the movie goes out of its way to explain why Mystique is alienated (she has creepy scaled blue skin), Magneto is alienated (was put in a concentration camp because he was a Jew, seeks vengeance), all the other mutants like Emma Frost, Havok, etc. are alienated (sometimes just because their feet are HORRIFYING, but there seems to be a reason, since Havok is in jail because he can't control his power and Frost as we remember was a prisoner in Origins...despite that happening after this one, in which case we could go back to why this is a bad reboot but anyway). Is it too much to ask why Charles isn't a misanthrope? I mean hearing people's thoughts has got to have some downsides to explore, instead the only info we are given on Charles is he is an affable rich kid who grows up to be some kind of biologist or geneticist (actually he seems to be more like an anthropologist since he does zero experiments in this film, but anyway) because he's fascinated by mutants. We get very little character development out of the film for him despite him being one of the principle protagonists (the other two probably being Magneto and to a lesser extent Mystique).

[Lumenskir]

Beast is filled with PAIN and RAGE and DARKNESS
Really? You're going to go with those descriptors over something more applicable like AWKWARD FUMBLING WHEN MADE FUN OF BY JOCK and DORKY AROUND CUTE GIRL?
Is it too much to ask why Charles isn't a misanthrope?
Why are you assuming the baseline is misanthrope? Like you said, he is a normal looking guy*, he comes from money, he seems to have always had his power under control (or at least, we never get the standard scene of him freaking out when surrounded by others, as he seems to need to trigger his ability rather than it being always on), and he has a pickup line with what I presume to be 100% efficiency (as long as there's no ulterior government motive in play), as well as a hot girl as his wingwoman. Besides his mom seeming to be somewhat stuck up, he has it pretty good is what I'm getting at. You expecting the movie to explain why he shouldn't be a misanthrope kind of says something about what you expect these movies to be.

*Yes, yes, lady poster, I understand James McAvoy as a physical specimen is something to aspire to in the looks department; I mean he has no obvious external mutant signifiers.

[Magus]

I'm pretty sure he gave a big long speech about how he and Mystique are never going to fit in because they are hideous freaks...well I mean one of them is a hideous freak and the other has weird feet, but anyway...it was dumb.

I'm pretty sure my wanting to see how Xavier overcame his problems with his powers and life to not be a misanthrope like Magneto or Mystique doesn't mean I want him to be misanthropic or more characters to be misanthropic (as I think you are implying). I think it was more just me wanting to know more. As for misanthropic being the baseline in these movies...well it is the baseline in these movies so far. Are you going to say it isn't? Which major characters in these movies haven't had the "curse" of their mutant abilities played up? It is basically the thing with the X-Men as far as I can tell. Everybody fears and hates them because of their super powers, and sometimes the powers or their appearance keep them from getting close to others (see: Rogue, Cyclops, Jean Gray, Wolverine, Mystique, Nightcrawler, etc.) Misanthropy is indeed the baseline for these movies.

[Lumenskir]

Misanthropy is indeed the baseline for these movies.
Ah, we're running into a "This Movie" v. "Movie Series" schism again.

Anyways, I just found out that this movie wasn't actually directed by Brian Singer, like I thought, but rather Matthew "Kick Ass" Vaughn. I'm glad to see he can actually direct movies that don't rely exclusively on the total awesomenicity of a little girl saying 'cunt'.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

I'm pretty sure he gave a big long speech about how he and Mystique are never going to fit in because they are hideous freaks...well I mean one of them is a hideous freak and the other has weird feet, but anyway...it was dumb.

I'm pretty sure my wanting to see how Xavier overcame his problems with his powers and life to not be a misanthrope like Magneto or Mystique doesn't mean I want him to be misanthropic or more characters to be misanthropic (as I think you are implying). I think it was more just me wanting to know more. As for misanthropic being the baseline in these movies...well it is the baseline in these movies so far. Are you going to say it isn't? Which major characters in these movies haven't had the "curse" of their mutant abilities played up? It is basically the thing with the X-Men as far as I can tell. Everybody fears and hates them because of their super powers, and sometimes the powers or their appearance keep them from getting close to others (see: Rogue, Cyclops, Jean Gray, Wolverine, Mystique, Nightcrawler, etc.) Misanthropy is indeed the baseline for these movies.

I assumed that the reason why Charles is such a nice guy is because reading someone's mind let's him know how they feel and why they feel that way. He has empathy for people because he understands them almost instantly.

[Magus]

Yeah, that's what I said in my first post. But that's just me explaining it in my own head, they didn't bother in the movie.

[MFD]

Well this post is probably gonna spoil stuff for you since you haven't seen it yet (not sure why you want to get into minutiae when you haven't seen a flick, I often pick on things that look bad when I haven't seen them, true, but usually go no farther than "man this looks bad"), but anyway--

To each his own. I want to know what is bad to see if it's bad I care about.

And no, Angel in this movie is not the same Angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Worthington_III) I am familiar with, anyway. One is a stripper chick with fairy wings who spits fireballs (a pure invention of this movie, I believe, as the idea is pretty bad), the other is a rich guy with feathery angelic wings (who wasn't even born during this movie's time frame, though putting him in it would have helped establish it as a reboot instead of the poorly thought out prequel that all evidence points to it being).

There is an Angel with insect wings who spits acid in the comics. Her real name is Angel, not a codename.

As for explaining why Charles is a nice dude, the movie goes out of its way to explain why Mystique is alienated (she has creepy scaled blue skin), Magneto is alienated (was put in a concentration camp because he was a Jew, seeks vengeance), all the other mutants like Emma Frost, Havok, etc. are alienated (sometimes just because their feet are HORRIFYING, but there seems to be a reason, since Havok is in jail because he can't control his power and Frost as we remember was a prisoner in Origins...despite that happening after this one, in which case we could go back to why this is a bad reboot but anyway). Is it too much to ask why Charles isn't a misanthrope? I mean hearing people's thoughts has got to have some downsides to explore, instead the only info we are given on Charles is he is an affable rich kid who grows up to be some kind of biologist or geneticist (actually he seems to be more like an anthropologist since he does zero experiments in this film, but anyway) because he's fascinated by mutants. We get very little character development out of the film for him despite him being one of the principle protagonists (the other two probably being Magneto and to a lesser extent Mystique).

I guess its not too much to ask the movie to go into more depth about X's motivations. It was a little much to hear you just questioning why a character has to be so damn nice.

[Magus]

There is an Angel with insect wings who spits acid in the comics. Her real name is Angel, not a codename.


Ah, well, that explains the confusion, then. Apparently the writers of this movie were also confused by Angel not being a codename...I am confused as to why they thought she was an interesting mutant to go with since she seems like one of the mutants the comics writers came up with late at night when they were maybe slightly hammered and facing some sort of deadline.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Magus: Something tells me that you would come out of the theater loving this movie if you watched it right after Green Lantern.

[BloodyMage]

Well, I'm late to the party but I went and watched it yesterday. Might have been due to having just some out of an ability assessment but I didn't find it that bad. I'd admit that it does seem to largely ignore the continuity of all the previous three films rather than just the last two, but it was a nice little film none the less.

[Marc v4.0]

I picked Super 8 over this for movie night.

[Fifthfiend]

Just from reading this thread it sounds like Xavier's not-hating-everybodyness is pretty well explained: He comes from a relatively comfortable life of priviledge and, you know, has no real reasons to be angry or hateful at anybody.

[BloodyMage]

Can't privileged people be hateful too? Like against the inferior or less privileged because all they do is show weakness, or they're just servants or butlers? Heck, he should at least have mother issues since his mother never made him hot chocolate...

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I'm pretty sure the entire history of the human race is privledged people hating on those who aren't privledged.

[Lumenskir]

I'm pretty sure the entire history of the human race is privledged people hating on those who aren't privledged.
Hmm...have they ever done a storyline where the mutant hunt was conflated with the Commy hunt of McCarthy?

[Token]

Hmm...have they ever done a storyline where the mutant hunt was conflated with the Commy hunt of McCarthy?

I'm pretty sure they have, and I'd honestly be surprised otherwise. These days however, it's all just a massive allegory for gayness.

Anyway, saw this yesterday, loved it. Easily my favorite of the X-Men movies.

[Magus]

Magus: Something tells me that you would come out of the theater loving this movie if you watched it right after Green Lantern.

OH DEAR GOD YES, YES THIS MOVIE IS NOW BLISSFUL

I mean seriously I thought it was like a 6/10 before but now that I've seen 0/10 it's like a 9/10 with a lot of other stuff at like 11/10 or what have you. Hell GL is now -3/10 in comparison.

I like Elektra more than GL I think. It at least had exploding smoke ninjas.