X-Men: The Last Stand

As Hollywood eye-candy entertainment for a young audience, The Last Stand is flawless. As a sequel to Singer’s X-Men 2, however, it’s just sad. Brett Ratner is an enthusiastic filmmaker, an aficionado of nice images, effects and movie heroes, but he’s too superficial and childish for the meaningfulness of the material that Bryan Singer outlined before him. The character of Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) and the occasional lapses in logic seem to have fallen out of a game adaptation by Paul W.S. Anderson and the film has more in common with Fantastic Four than with its predecessors. At the age of seventeen, when I loved Commando because there was “always something happening” in it, I would have liked The Last Stand best out of all of the X-Men movies. P.S. If Singer had added “his own thing” to the high-octane screenplay and shot it himself with a straighter face and a more modest 120-minute runtime, this really could have been the best instalment of the franchise. (05/23/2006)

Not as emotional and almost perfect as the first installment, and not as comic book-like and cohesive as the second installment, yet despite the change of director, it is still adequately X-Men and unmistakable. Wolverine with Hugh's traditionally sharp face is a safe bet and it's no wonder he remained the main character. Others lag behind him surprisingly this time, which is especially disappointing with the highly favored Storm, from whom we don't get any new surprises. It is even more unfortunate that the very interesting background characters (Angel and especially Kitty) are not developed. Before Singer's departure, a grand finale of the entire mutant saga was promised, which surprisingly does not happen in the end. I didn't feel like I was watching the last installment, rather maybe one of the final ones. After the first few showings, due to my love for the school for gifted youth, I gave a rating somewhere around 90%, because after three years of eagerly waiting and subsequent fear of the outcome, I felt highly satisfied with the path Ratner took. However, with distance, it's not that glorious, mainly due to the unnecessarily clunky screenplay. For an installment where two major storylines of Phoenix's rampage and the mutation cure come together, it's a shame to waste such an ace up the sleeve as Juggernaut. One of the most iconic villains in comics could have been a draw for the next installment, but here he is just an ordinary unremarkable pawn. With distance and comparison to the remaining installments (including Logan's solos, First Class, and Days of Future Past), it must be admitted that this is indeed the weakest adventure of the Children of the Atom. Fortunately, it still means a clear victory. (06/04/2006)

It's as if I've gone from a four-star restaurant called Singer's, serving chicken medallions in cheese batter, Sacher cake for dessert, and 2004 Chardonnay, to a perfectly functional fast-food chain called McRatner, with a triple burger and a Coke. You might eat at both places, but you'll have a different experience, not to mention the memories you'll take away. (09/14/2006)

Ratner is not Singer, which wouldn't be such a big flaw if it weren't for the fact that Singer = X-men. The young director inserted so much of his own style into the X-men series that Ratner simply has no options. However, he is able to do the action sequences as effectively as his predecessor, he handles the dynamics and tension well (the film really flows fast), and he also retains a decent portion of chemistry between the main characters. But. He lacks a creative approach to the matter, the new characters are bloodless, superficial, and any deeper dialogues in Ratner's routine performance suddenly sound convulsive and untrustworthy. There’s an increase in clichés and superfluous pathos, which replaces honest work with the main idea, in which Singer was the master of masters. Although the X-Men were never great philosophers, one could not deny them depth and sophistication. The third film has the energy, good moments and the characteristics of the previous parts, but Ratner is unable to imitate Singer's bravura and diligence. Why couldn't Bryan wait one more film? X-Men: The Last Stand could have been the peak, whilst this is just a good comic book film. ***1/2 (05/29/2006)

The Last Stand is definitely the most bombastic part of the whole mutant trilogy. Despite the change in director (Ratner instead of Singer), they managed to film an epic piece of entertainment with great special effects that makes skillful use of the psychology already developed in the first two X-Men. The story revolves around the discovery of a cure against being a mutant (the ever more frequently casted fresh-faced Cameron Bright). Magneto takes advantage of an opportunity and widens the ranks of his followers (Juggernaut, Callisto, Phoenix...) and makes preparations for the long discussed war. Which makes room for lots of playing about. Ratner even came up with several wonderful novelties (the 1 to 5 mutant evolution scale, Wolverine’s improved fighting style) and amazing scenes (Wolverine approaching Jean is absolutely perfect, as well as Xavier testing his strength with Phoenix). But Ratner is no Singer and so his work with character psychology was a little shoddy. He tied up some loose ends from part two and tried to open some new storylines (Angel, Mystique), only to close them again. It’s hard to say how it would have all ended up if Brian Singer hadn’t eloped with the guy in the red cloak, but even so X-Men: The Last Stand is the biggest blockbuster event of this year. P.S. I really like Famke Janssen, but she gave me goose bumps in this movie and I was almost afraid of her. (07/17/2006)