X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

[johnnygobbs]

Singer doesn't have a clue about comic book films. I fear he'll ruin this one.

That franchise is already tarnished for me.  However, to be fair there are the nuggets of some interesting ideas and concepts regarding discrimination and the ways in which the various mutants challenge that discrimination throughout the franchise to keep one's interest for at least one screening, but I won't encourage Fox by paying to see any of the X-Men films at the cinema.

[Edd Grayson]

I haven't paid to see any of them either. Singer robbed the movies of the fun and adventure that the cartoons and the comics had. He made everything so black-and-white and bland. Vaughn did a better job with First Class, but now that Singer is back at the helm I know this next one isn't going to be that good.

[The Joker]

Checked out The Wolverine today, and TLS is definitely acknowledged. Can't see them completely ignoring it, especially since the film leads into Days of Future Past quite nicely, but given that time travel is a factor in the upcoming X-Men movie, there's ways of 'correcting' the issues with continuity if Singer and company want to put some focus on that.

[thecolorsblend]

Can't believe I'm about to defend Bryan Singer but here goes.

The first X-Men movie came out when comic book movies were less in vogue than they are now. For true or false and for better or worse, the assumption was that wide audiences wouldn't accept something that was too "comic booky" so X-Men had a very grounded feel to it. It's not lost on me that First Class must continue with the established tone but it's a lot more heightened and stylized than the first X-Men was.

Simply put, Singer has more leeway now to play with exactly how sci-fi he can make the X-Men. If the rumored fixes and tweaks do get made, the door is wide open for something much more comic book-oriented... and I think the time is right for that.

[johnnygobbs]

Can't believe I'm about to defend Bryan Singer but here goes.

The first X-Men movie came out when comic book movies were less in vogue than they are now. For true or false and for better or worse, the assumption was that wide audiences wouldn't accept something that was too "comic booky" so X-Men had a very grounded feel to it. It's not lost on me that First Class must continue with the established tone but it's a lot more heightened and stylized than the first X-Men was.

Simply put, Singer has more leeway now to play with exactly how sci-fi he can make the X-Men. If the rumored fixes and tweaks do get made, the door is wide open for something much more comic book-oriented... and I think the time is right for that.

Good point but my issues with the current X-Men franchise (and I say 'current' in the hope we will one day get a reboot) is not simply from a stylistic POV.  I think you're probably right about the mindset for making the first few X-Men films and the concern that they would be 'too comic-booky' possibly in the wake of the Schumacher Batman films, hence the no-frills black leather costumes instead of bright yellow and blue spandex.  As you suggest 'First Class' was visually more heightened which had a lot to do with its 60s setting and classic James Bond aping tone, and from what I've read and seen in terms of footage (i.e. the picture of Peter Dinklage sporting a porn-star 70s look as Bolivar Trask) 'Days of Future Past' may continue in this style particularly since part of the film is said to also be set in the past.

However, in terms of story, group dynamic, characterisations and the over-dominance of Wolverine, who is once again supposed to take centre-stage in the upcoming movie despite being the only X-Man so far with his own spin-off franchise, I really think Fox and Singer in particular dropped the ball.  Apparently Singer initially viewed the X-Men franchise as a springboard for getting the Superman gig, hence why he was so quick to ditch helming the third X-Men film in 2006, so his return to this comic-book franchise after the poorly received 'Superman Returns' strikes me as almost an act of desperation for a once highly-regarded director (remember 'The Usual Suspects'?) who has made little of any success within the last ten years beyond the X-Men series.

[johnnygobbs]

Irrespective of my misgivings this site inspires some hope in me: http://www.trask-industries.com/#/home

It's a very well put-together piece of meta-marketing and suggests that Bolivar Trask could be one of the most complicated and interesting comic-book villains for some time.

[thecolorsblend]

Good point but my issues with the current X-Men franchise (and I say 'current' in the hope we will one day get a reboot) is not simply from a stylistic POV.  I think you're probably right about the mindset for making the first few X-Men films and the concern that they would be 'too comic-booky' possibly in the wake of the Schumacher Batman films, hence the no-frills black leather costumes instead of bright yellow and blue spandex.  As you suggest 'First Class' was visually more heightened which had a lot to do with its 60s setting and classic James Bond aping tone, and from what I've read and seen in terms of footage (i.e. the picture of Peter Dinklage sporting a porn-star 70s look as Bolivar Trask) 'Days of Future Past' may continue in this style particularly since part of the film is said to also be set in the past.

Not sure what to tell you here. I mostly could give a crap about the X-Men apart from Wolverine. I think that's the team's broad appeal... and could be a factor in why First Class maybe didn't knock 'em dead in theaters.

However, in terms of story, group dynamic, characterisations and the over-dominance of Wolverine, who is once again supposed to take centre-stage in the upcoming movie despite being the only X-Man so far with his own spin-off franchise, I really think Fox and Singer in particular dropped the ball.  Apparently Singer initially viewed the X-Men franchise as a springboard for getting the Superman gig, hence why he was so quick to ditch helming the third X-Men film in 2006, so his return to this comic-book franchise after the poorly received 'Superman Returns' strikes me as almost an act of desperation for a once highly-regarded director (remember 'The Usual Suspects'?) who has made little of any success within the last ten years beyond the X-Men series.

I think the guy's entire resume is pretty overrated when you really look at it. TUS is probably the best movie he's ever made... and I'd chalk most of that up to the cast. The script was shlock with a really good twist ending but I can't think of much else about the movie except the actors therein that really made it work.

Hadn't heard the bit about Singer using the X-Men movies as the gateway to Superman though. Interesting.

[johnnygobbs]

Not sure what to tell you here. I mostly could give a crap about the X-Men apart from Wolverine. I think that's the team's broad appeal... and could be a factor in why First Class maybe didn't knock 'em dead in theaters.
ten years beyond the X-Men series.

You must be cock-a-hoop about the X-Men film series and the two spin-off Wolverine movies then.  I mean I don't know why they bother even calling them X-Men films.  They might as well market them as the 'Wolverine Chronicles' and package them as thus with 'First Class' as a mere spin-off. 

My understanding is that the Wolverineless 'First Class' is one of the most highly-praised of the X-Men films, certainly more so than either of the Wolverine spin-off movies, although clearly the wider public keep clamouring to see the Wolverine movies.  But if the inexplicable success of the Transformers movies teach us anything it's that the great unwashed often have no taste or no clue what they're doing.

I think the guy's entire resume is pretty overrated when you really look at it. TUS is probably the best movie he's ever made... and I'd chalk most of that up to the cast. The script was shlock with a really good twist ending but I can't think of much else about the movie except the actors therein that really made it work.

Hadn't heard the bit about Singer using the X-Men movies as the gateway to Superman though. Interesting.

I agree with you about Singer's resume being overrated.  But only in retrospect, in view of his subsequent career, does the 'Usual Suspects' seem like a case of the 'Emperor's New Clothes'.  When it was first released I was definitely a fan and considered it to be a great cult movie on par with the still-classic stuff being pumped out by Tarantino and the Coens Brothers during the period but like you say much of its entertainment value is attributable to a great cast on the top of their professional game (that goes especially for Stephen Baldwin  ) and a memorable twist.  In terms of the direction there really isn't a lot there to get too excited about and even the twist seems like a bit of a cheap trick in retrospect, admittedly papered over by the brilliance of Kevin Spacey's performance (pity he couldn't repay the favour to Bryan Singer with 'Superman Returns' where he, like the rest of the film, put in an utterly mediocre performance).

I wish I could find the reference to Singer using the X-Man films as a 'gateway' to Superman but my understanding is that Singer wasn't even that big a comics-book guy so much as a huge fan of the Donner Superman films hence his over-egregious love-letter masquerading as a Superman movie.  Clearly Singer did identify with some of the themes regarding discrimination and alienation at the root of the X-Men comic-books, and to be fair these are the most successful and important aspects of his X-Men franchise, but from what I read he initially saw the first X-Men film, then one of the few comic-book properties in production (and in all fairness something of a trailblazer for the subsequent comic-book movie golden period we're currently enjoying), as a potential demo for reviving the Superman franchise (hence why he was so quick to ditch 'X-Men 3' for the 'Superman Returns' gig).

[thecolorsblend]

You must be cock-a-hoop about the X-Men film series and the two spin-off Wolverine movies then.

Only saw the first one. I don't see why everyone bags on it. Is it great? No. But based on the one time I saw it ages ago, it didn't seem like the crapfest people made it out to be.

My understanding is that the Wolverineless 'First Class' is one of the most highly-praised of the X-Men films,

And yet it didn't turn a nickel's profit in the US. The $40'ish million it scraped up overseas is nothing to brag about either.

But if the inexplicable success of the Transformers movies teach us anything it's that the great unwashed often have no taste or no clue what they're doing.

I really don't understand why those movies bother you so much. By way of analogy, I know nothing and care nothing about the Twilight films but I'm not offended on a personal level that they exist. They're probably not to my taste so I leave it to people who do care about them... of which there seem to be a lot because those movies are (were?) very successful. What's the problem exactly?

When it was first released I was definitely a fan and considered it to be a great cult movie on par with the still-classic stuff being pumped out by Tarantino and the Coens Brothers during the period but like you say much of its entertainment value is attributable to a great cast on the top of their professional game (that goes especially for Stephen Baldwin  )

He was okay, I guess, but I thought Spacey, Byrne and del Toro were the most memorable aspects of the film. The others were fine, I guess, but those three are really what pushed the movie over the top for me.

(pity he couldn't repay the favour to Bryan Singer with 'Superman Returns' where he, like the rest of the film, put in an utterly mediocre performance).

If you ever have a chance to the documentary from the Singerman DVD, it's worth doing just to get an idea of how much Singer attempted to rescue Spacey's performance. A lot of people thought he did a lot of hammy acting in the movie but FFS he went even further over the top when they were in production. It's really an eye-opener at what editing can do to an actor's performance. As it is, Spacey's performance was pretty middle of the road... but it's an undeniable step up compared to what Spacey himself intended.

I wish I could find the reference to Singer using the X-Man films as a 'gateway' to Superman but my understanding is that Singer wasn't even that big a comics-book guy so much as a huge fan of the Donner Superman films hence his over-egregious love-letter masquerading as a Superman movie.  Clearly Singer did identify with some of the themes regarding discrimination and alienation at the root of the X-Men comic-books, and to be fair these are the most successful and important aspects of his X-Men franchise, but from what I read he initially saw the first X-Men film, then one of the few comic-book properties in production (and in all fairness something of a trailblazer for the subsequent comic-book movie golden period we're currently enjoying), as a potential demo for reviving the Superman franchise (hence why he was so quick to ditch 'X-Men 3' for the 'Superman Returns' gig).

Somehow it just doesn't come as too big a surprise. The guy had no imagination for the character outside of Donner. A lot of non-fans swore on stacks of Bibles that Singer made the right decision in continuing the Donnerverse rather than doing a complete reboot before Singerman came out but were pretty quiet when the box office returns started coming in and it became obvious that it was going to be a real moneypit. Of course, there are Apologists out there to this day who swore that Singerman somehow turned a profit but I'll spare you that drama.

[johnnygobbs]

You must be cock-a-hoop about the X-Men film series and the two spin-off Wolverine movies then.

Only saw the first one. I don't see why everyone bags on it. Is it great? No. But based on the one time I saw it ages ago, it didn't seem like the crapfest people made it out to be.

It's not unwatchable but it's still pretty mediocre and as per usual short-changes every other X-Men character, including Gambit, the Blob and Deadpool, in the service of telling Wolverine's story.

But if the inexplicable success of the Transformers movies teach us anything it's that the great unwashed often have no taste or no clue what they're doing.

I really don't understand why those movies bother you so much. By way of analogy, I know nothing and care nothing about the Twilight films but I'm not offended on a personal level that they exist. They're probably not to my taste so I leave it to people who do care about them... of which there seem to be a lot because those movies are (were?) very successful. What's the problem exactly?

Maybe I'm coming across as an elitist tool.  If that's the case, I apologise.  But we all have films we dislike and would prefer to see the back of.  You seem to have some string opinions on stuff like 'Superman Returns' and Nolan's Batman films yourself, and I think they're all perfectly valid.  In my case I don't care for the Transformers movies, or for Michael Bay's directorial style in general ('The Rock' excepted) but I can understand why people flock to them in droves.  They are very commercial and I don't mean that in a condescending way.  There is plenty of 'commercial' stuff I do like, for instance 'The Avengers' films, but by contrast I consider those films to be pretty well-made and at the very least, coherent.

When it was first released I was definitely a fan and considered it to be a great cult movie on par with the still-classic stuff being pumped out by Tarantino and the Coens Brothers during the period but like you say much of its entertainment value is attributable to a great cast on the top of their professional game (that goes especially for Stephen Baldwin  )

He was okay, I guess, but I thought Spacey, Byrne and del Toro were the most memorable aspects of the film. The others were fine, I guess, but those three are really what pushed the movie over the top for me.

I probably didn't express myself very well but what I mean by 'that goes especially for Stephen Baldwin' was that it's pretty indisputable that 'The Usual Suspects' was in his case the peak of his career.  By contrast, Spacey, Bryne, del Toro, Postlethwaite and even Pollack have done great work elsewhere.  All the actors were at the top of their game on this film but sadly for Baldwin this was his one and only great performance.

(pity he couldn't repay the favour to Bryan Singer with 'Superman Returns' where he, like the rest of the film, put in an utterly mediocre performance).

If you ever have a chance to the documentary from the Singerman DVD, it's worth doing just to get an idea of how much Singer attempted to rescue Spacey's performance. A lot of people thought he did a lot of hammy acting in the movie but FFS he went even further over the top when they were in production. It's really an eye-opener at what editing can do to an actor's performance. As it is, Spacey's performance was pretty middle of the road... but it's an undeniable step up compared to what Spacey himself intended.

That's interesting because in some ways you're almost giving Singer some credit for having the sense to try and tone down Spacey's performance, albeit in post-production.  I don't know what happened to Spacey.  I've seen him on stage and he's still a great actor and he's getting some great notices for "House of Cards" but after a barnstorming set of late 90s hits with 'The Usual Suspects', 'Seven', 'L.A. Confidential' and 'American Beauty' and his earlier great work going toe-to-toe as a relative unknown against Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon and Ed Harris et al in the brilliant 'Glengarry Glen Ross' his film career seemed to have nose-dived and he ended up on auto-pilot doing dreck like 'K-PAX' and 'The Life of David Gale'.  Back in the late 90s I would have salivated at the prospect of Spacey as Lex Luthor but by 2006 it should have been inevitable that he was simply going to shamelessly ham it up.