X-Men- The Last Stand
To clarify at the top, “X-Men: The Last Stand” is nothing more than a disappointing third film in an up-to-now exceptional comic book series (don’t buy into it being the “Last,” though it is with all the original cast). It lacks the profound dread of mishandling that made abysmal viewing of “Catwoman,” “Batman & Robin,” and “Fantastic Four,” and it lacks the mistakes in tone that hampered “Batman Forever.” I can count more things this movie did right- or tried to do right- than what it did wrong, although the latter can outweigh the former considerably. As is, I wouldn’t have this film any longer than the 105 minutes it stands at (putting it far shorter than 2003’s “X2: X-Men United” (the series’ best entry), but on par with 2000’s “X-Men,” which looks even more underrated now than it already was), but I would have some amendments to that idea…namely, letting the most interesting stories breath and develop over just getting to the next action sequence.
You can’t completely blame Brett Ratner- the director of the “Rush Hour” smashes and “Red Dragon” who stepped in when Bryan Singer (who made the first two films) split for this summer’s “Superman Returns” does a capable job with what he’s been given, which is a barebones plot hashed out by screenwriters Zak Penn (“X2”) and Simon Kinberg (“Mr. and Mrs. Smith”) more interested in tying up loose ends in the plot than digging for emotional closure to any one character’s story. I can’t say it’s not an interesting story, involving a “cure” for the mutant gene found by a scientist whose own son (Ben Foster as Angel has a character interesting enough to justify at least half of his own movie, but is reduced to a handful of scenes) grew wings. The idea of a cure doesn’t sit well with Magneto, the defiantly anti-human flip side to Patrick Stewart’s hopeful Professor Xavier played (once again) with delightful bravado by Sir Ian McKellen, who begins to form an army of like-minded mutants to march on the lab holding the key to the cure (a mutant child “played” by Cameron Bright) located on Alcatraz island. It’s up to Xavier’s “X-Men”- the metal-clawed Logan, aka Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, not quite the live-wire in the role he was in the first two films, but still entertaining), the white-haired weather-changer Storm (Halle Berry, with more screentime not helping her continually-hollow characterization of the role), and the laser-eyed Cyclops (James Marsden, in little more than a cameo; no wonder, he’s also in Singer’s “Superman”)- to stop the impending war, but they’ve got more on their mind after Jean Grey (Famke Janssen, capable of more than this script gives her)- the telepath who died at the end of “X2”- returns from her watery grave as the Phoenix, a story revered by fans of the comic.
That’s the story, and I haven’t even mentioned several of the other mutants whose roles are either expanded (in size, if not depth), reduced (poor Mystique- played by Rebecca Romijn- who’s at least used interestingly; more on Rogue coming up), or introduced, like Kelsey Grammer as Beast (a great casting coup that works as well as you’d hope), Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut (basically a “muscle” role not unlike Sabertooth in the first film), and Ellen Page (who just astonished critics in “Hard Candy”) as Kitty Pryde, who can walk through walls and has a thing for Rogue’s man Iceman (Shawn Ashmore, one of those expanded but not explored characters). Already you can see a fundamental problem with “The Last Stand.” It’s the same problem that has dogged many a comic book movie in the past, and few (last year’s “Batman Begins” namely, though “Batman Returns” almost got it right as well) have solved- the multiple protagonist-antagonist syndrome, or, “We have 40-plus years of mythology we want to show you in 2 hours.” Granted, you can’t really do an “X-Men” movie without multiple characters with their own stories to tell, but as the first two movies proved, there is a way of handling it better than “Stand” does.
**In the following paragraphs, I will be going into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the movie and want to be surprised, read no further.**
There are two scenes in “X-Men: The Last Stand” that point up how the movie fails where the first two movies succeeded. One was my favorite moment of the movie, the second was my least favorite. My favorite was a touching moment between Logan and Rogue (Anna Paquin), as Rogue- who’s unable to touch people without taking their life force- makes the decision to take the cure in hope of being able to touch her boyfriend Iceman, with Logan trying to make sure she’s doing so for the right reasons. What made this moment so wonderful for me? Because it was a character moment that felt genuine and earned emotionally, if more for what was laid in place in the first two films- especially the first one, where Logan and Rogue’s relationship was the core of the film- and one that was played by Jackman and Paquin with real compassion for the dilemma they both face. It’s a rare moment that captures the spirit Singer and his writers achieved in the first two films, and that the best superhero movies (namely, “Superman: The Movie,” “Spider-Man 2,” and “Batman Begins”) are loaded with.
My least favorite moment? (Here’s where the major spoilers come into play.) The death of Professor Xavier at the hands of Phoenix. And here’s the key- it’s not my least favorite because of the death of a beloved character because of a tragic heroine. What ranks this moment so low is that I didn’t feel any emotion during this scene. A death like this should strike you like a thunderbolt emotionally- think Obi-Wan’s death in “A New Hope,” Gandalf’s fall in “Fellowship of the Ring.” But this should go deeper, because it’s at the hands of a character whose fall is- by all accounts from comic fans- one of the most iconic of all comic book stories. At the end of its’ sixth season, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (which acknowledged- more than once- a debt to “X-Men” and Marvel in general, but before you ask why creator Joss Whedon wasn’t attached to “Last Stand,” he’s been off writing “Wonder Woman” for rival DC Comics since “Serenity”) had its’ own version of the Phoenix story in the fall of witch Willow when she becomes addicted to the power magic (especially dark magic) can bring; it was only for a handful of episodes, but the moments fans most remember from that arc didn’t lack in dramatic punch the way this one- and really, all the big moments in “Stand’s” handling of the Phoenix story- does. During this scene (and the big blow out between Wolverine and Phoenix at the end, mirrored in that same “Buffy” arc in the finale where Xander’s love for his friend brings Willow back), my focus wasn’t on the drama of the scene, but on the lack of effectiveness of the visual effects, which took me out of both scenes when I should have been most engaged. Usually, it’s custom in film reviews to say, “in lesser hands…” when it comes to scenes like this…except this one is in lesser hands, so you wonder than how it would play in better hands. Whedon’s, for example. Or Singer’s.
**End Spoilers**
“X-Men: The Last Stand” (whose score is an unmemorable and formulaic disappointment- especially after the underrated work by the late Michael Kamen on the first film and excellent work by John Ottman on “X2”- by John Powell after his strong, subtle success for “United 93”) is the latest example of the trend in this summer’s blockbusters (though what I’ve seen of “Superman Returns” makes it- so far- the most disturbing of all). Call it the “Mo’ Money” Syndrome, where studios spend outrageous amounts of money making movies, and the director’s make sure you see every dollar onscreen. It’s one of the reasons the “Matrix” sequels didn’t really work. Granted, with some movies (“M:i-3,” “Superman Returns”), the reason for the syndrome is simply because they’ve spent so much time in development Hell they have to break the bank after so long to make it seem worthwhile for fans. With others (“The Da Vinci Code”), it’s due to excessive salary demands of the main people involved (’cause let’s face it, getting Tom Hanks, director Ron Howard, and producer Brian Grazer on a movie ain’t cheap). Sometimes the gamble pays off handsomely, both for the film and for the studio (see “Spider-Man 2,” “King Kong,” and the original $200 million film, “Titanic”), but all of those films made sure story came first. But with something like “Poseidon,” where the sole reason for its’ existance is to give you big action without putting much into the plot or characters, you wonder “why bother” as it goes through the motions of what we’ve come to expect from our summer action blowouts. But that film fell hard at the domestic box-office, as did similar ventures last summer in “Stealth” (unseen by me) and “The Island.” So, why bother? Because something like this will still likely make a killing overseas, and then the DVD will pad the numbers a bit. Don’t expect too many more of these, though. I can’t imagine the studios will be gambling so much on movies like “Poseidon” in the coming years as they continue to fail domestically, despite the financial rewards overseas and on DVD. They really want people back in seats at the theatres, and one gets the impression that hopefully, last year’s slump- which has sort of continued this year- was a wakeup call for them.
What does this have to do with “X-Men: The Last Stand?” Because the final product seemed more like “Poseidon” than anything else. The movie- rushed into production to beat Singer’s “Superman” to the box-office finish line- gives its’ characters brief moments of obligatory “development” in between big set pieces designed to give you some major bang for your buck. But “Stand” rarely gives you a reason to care, and the action feels uninspired after the standout set pieces of the first movies (Wolverine’s fight with Mystique in the first one, the brilliant scene with Nightcrawler’s attack on the White House in “X2”). So much potential, so little real success (other highlights include Magneto’s “end” and the scenes at a cemetary). Is it unreasonable to think comic book movie fans haven’t been this disappointed since “Batman Forever,” another third film that saw a creative changing of the guard, and suffered as a result (despite a brilliant Jim Carrey as the Riddler)? So long as Fox doesn’t allow a “Batman & Robin”-esque catastrophe, I’m willing to give them another chance to do right by Singer’s successful beginnings for the franchise with another filmmaker. These Mutants deserved better.
