Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Derwood
it got pounded in my paper today. Said Brett Ratner ruined it
|
I'm not surprised to hear this. I read an interview with Patrick Stewart in which he was trying to say nice things about Brett Ratner as director, but it was clear what he was thinking. He said something along the lines of how Brett is always so intense and he thinks that intensity will come through to the audience and people will just be blown away. I've seen enough and read enough about the movie to know about that "intensity," and Patrick Stewart is a smart guy. What I read into his statement was more along the lines of "Brett Ratner has one mode: intense. He lacks the dynamic needed to make a movie work and not just be a whole bunch of action." I haven't seen it yet, but that's what the movie looks like to me: completely flat. Peaks are only good insofar as there are also excellent valleys. X-Men III looks like it's in the plains. But, hey, I haven't seen it, so we'll see what I think after I do.
EDIT: Well, I looked on the IMDB message boards because I'm curious, and sure enough it looks like the movie is *exactly* what I've been thinking it would be for some time. It's really sad to me, but this person who did see the movie said it best:Spoiler:
"Every frame of this film feels rushed. A slew of characters were killed and cured, and I didn't even bat an eyelash. Ideas are barely explored, and none of the characters get any real focus. Aside from Wolvy, Storm, and Magneto, every mutant feels like an obligatory cameo. All the actors, save for Ian McKelllen, act out-of-character and hurry through their dialogue like they wanna get the hell outta the movie."