X-Men (2000)
I got all three films for three buck each and I revisited the first (I still have not seen any of the others.) Frankly, even looking for a thread was a bit difficult as they all share the X-Men title...
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
Servant of Legendre wrote:That would be a pity, Herman, cos X-MEN: FIRST CLASS is by far the best of the bunch, IMO. ( Apart from a tedious getting-to-know-you segment with a bunch of new recruit...
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
Based on the movies' timeline, Cyclops (and the other non-Wolverine X-Men from the earlier films) would have been too young to place in the early 60s.
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
hermanthegerm wrote:Saw the next two sequels. There are things I liked, but overall, they are pretty by-the-book super hero pictures. Trying not to offend anyone here, but what ...Read More
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
Tim Smyth wrote:hermanthegerm wrote:Saw the next two sequels. There are things I liked, but overall, they are pretty by-the-book super hero pictures....Read More
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
Hey Herman, I dd read that, but you said you were revisiting the first one, so I thought you had seen that one new. So sorry for any misunderstanding. I do not think films last the way they used to,...
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
I agree with you in that sense, the bar has been raised for action films (to the point of incoherence even) but there is always room a quality film that does something unique, and thus achieve classic...
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
Tim Smyth wrote:hermanthegerm wrote:Saw the next two sequels. There are things I liked, but overall, they are pretty by-the-book super hero pictures....Read More
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
The Crow (1994) and Spawn (1997) were probably precursors of the 'new' dark superhero. Burton's Batman Returns (1992) might have gotten it close, except for its comic (as in funny) qualities, and, of...
View ArticleClik here to view.
Re: X-Men (2000)
True enough. I overlook The Crow and Spawn on account of finding them terrible.
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
Agreed, particularly Spawn. But I did see both, so I suspect their moderate success fed the genre for a while, and fed it enough that it was able to continue on.
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
My sister in law walked out saying it was the worst movie ever... But I just don't see it. It was a OK neo-goth vigilante/revenge movie, but I get why some would not like it. Too dark for mainstream...
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
Spawn is cheesy, but kind of fun in a way. Todd has been pushing for a more horror-oriented film to be made, but I don't know if Spawn is popular enough now to get the backing. The HBO animated series...
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
The X-Men trilogy was a real blown opportunity as the excellent X2 seemed to be setting up the Claremont/Byrne Dark Phoenix Saga to round out the story. It would have been interesting to see how close...
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
Referring back several posts. Ang Lee's Hulk is already becoming forgotten and I see no cult status for it anytime. It's dull, disappointing and The Hulk wrestles around with mutated poodles. It...
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
I kind of think Ruffalo's performance in THE AVENGERS is going to go a long way in removing Ang Lee, and possibly Ed Norton, from everybody's mind.
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
jamesenstein31 wrote:I actually saw the Ang Lee HULK in the theaters.....ah,Dammit.Same here. I can't recall an audience turning so hostile toward a movie they were so hyped up to see. ...Read More
View ArticleRe: X-Men (2000)
It wasn't so much the story that did that film to death as the 'panelling' attempt to make it look like a comic book in places. If you're going to make a movie, make a movie, don't try to concoct a...
View Article
