Just Watched X-Men 3 #no spoilers#

Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
1,200
Location
Kingston upon Thames
kaks said:
An absolute joke of a film and is no where near as good as the previous 2.

Blunt, but I have to agree.

I thought x2 was a fantastic, fantastic film and this was such a letdown :(

Halle Berry needs beating, shooting, and to be set on by a rancor :/
 
Soldato
Joined
7 May 2003
Posts
4,247
Location
Away from here
I watched the 12:01 showing here in Seattle last night, and I quite enjoyed it.

It was obvious that the 'plot' was there to tie the action sequences together and the cheesy lines were a bit OTT (You, more than anyone should know that the weather can change quickly, Storm (or words to that effect)) but on the whole I liked it.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Jan 2005
Posts
8,436
Location
leeds
Mic said:
I think this film will need to make a lot more than 80 million to ensure a sequal.. It cost a whopping 200million

profit i meant.

anyway, i haven't even seen it yet - i think i'll go see it tomorrow lunchtime.

most people say its not as good as the others but i might aswell go and see it anyway - i haven't been to the cinema since king kong (which was crap)
 
Associate
Joined
25 Apr 2006
Posts
100
The clue to the bit after the end credits is in the lecture being taken by Xavier at the beginning of the film. Angel was the gay bit, Juggernaut was the comic bit, Beast is still a psychiatrist (Oooh, Kelsey Grammer just can't ditch Frasier can he?), Mystique is still fit, even without her blue plastic bodysuit but I am sure Rebecca Romjin has put a little weight on.
I liked the film. Remember people, it's based on a cartoon book, anything goes.

The only thing which I felt was silly, was Magneto moving the SF Harbour Bridge. He could have just got the ferry to Alcatraz.

I don't think this is a spoiler as it's in every trailer seen on tv and cinemas.
 

Mic

Mic

Soldato
Joined
4 Aug 2005
Posts
3,869
Location
Ireland
Shootist said:
Beast is still a psychiatrist (Oooh, Kelsey Grammer just can't ditch Frasier can he?),
He is supposed to be. Beast is an incredibly smart man in the comics. And kelsey grammer is perfect as him.

but I am sure Rebecca Romjin has put a little weight on.
Either way, she looks better in that film than iv ever seen her before.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
12,926
I thought it was a huge let down, the script was poor, the one liners were poor, the acting was poor, the story was poor.

but most importantly there was just no need for soem of the things that happened in the film to happen at all.


overall though they tried to cram too much into 1 movie, they could easily have made 2 films out of everything that was going on in this one.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,090
memphisto said:
I thought it was a huge let down, the script was poor, the one liners were poor, the acting was poor, the story was poor.

but most importantly there was just no need for soem of the things that happened in the film to happen at all.


overall though they tried to cram too much into 1 movie, they could easily have made 2 films out of everything that was going on in this one.

i'd agree with that, to me it felt like there were just too many stories going on to allow the plot to focus on one of them and offer any real depth to it.
 

Mic

Mic

Soldato
Joined
4 Aug 2005
Posts
3,869
Location
Ireland
Calum said:
Brilliant film but missed the scene after the credit's!!!! :mad:
Its on youtube.
People keep putting it up and fox keeps taking it down. You have to get lucky to see it.

The film is raking in the money however, with a 44million opening friday apparently
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Posts
3,293
Location
South East Coast
Saw it tonight, some bits were a bit over sentimental and I thought Brian Foster's Angel was underused as well as a few character's but definately a worthy end to the trilogy, one of the few film's that could have done with another 15-20 mins just to fill out some of the characters *hopes for an extended DVD cut*
 
Permabanned
Joined
15 May 2006
Posts
2,278
Decent movie, the last 30 minutes were good, before then I got a bit bored. Some really excellent special effects, must have cost a bucket load of money. Better than the first one for sure, not seen the second.
 
Associate
Joined
28 Jan 2005
Posts
356
Quite enjoyed it myself, although I had read reviews saying it wasn't amazing which nicely set me up not to expect too much from it. Second one was better though - more thoughtfully written and a better script. First one it's hard to say, as that was such a smaller scale movie, but I'd probably put them both on a par in terms of overall enjoyment.


memphisto said:
overall though they tried to cram too much into 1 movie, they could easily have made 2 films out of everything that was going on in this one.

Amen. Just too many characters that did nothing, and they coud have expanded so many of them and given them meatier roles. Angel being a prime example.
 
Associate
Joined
15 Sep 2005
Posts
1,744
MarkyMark said:
Just a tip for anyone who goes to watch this at the cinema. Just got back from seeing it and there is a short sequence right at the end after all the credits. Kind of turns some of what you thought you knew on its head.

Am not spoiling anything for anyone though. Just thought i'd make you all aware since a nice guy at the cinema gave us the heads up


thanks for the tip, glad we stayed to catch that bit :)
nobody else knew, kinda cool it's a bit secret...
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Mar 2004
Posts
8,436
Location
Kent
Well I haven't read the comics at all, only watched the three films, and I have to say this one is the worst of the three. It didn't feel like it was heading anywhere, and all the cool characters are either gone, didn't have a bigger part, or both :/
 
Back
Top Bottom