Marvel Movie Madness! Part 13: X-Men: First Class

Summary

Matt: After a disappointing descent into mediocrity (X-Men: The Last Stand, and Wolverine), Marvel's mutant heroes make a triumphant return to the big screen with a prequel that tells the story of how the band got together back in the day. Now, if you're like me and grew up reading The Uncanny X-Men, you won't like the liberties taken here with which mutants were actually in this "First Class." But I'm willing to let that pass because this movie is mostly pretty fun. The action is thrilling, the cast is (mostly) great, and the story works pretty well. Back to Article

Comments

This comment has been removed.

Cory

Cory B

It would actually mean a damn, because they would do a pure reboot of the series that would probably be a bit more true to the source material. I see this as essential, because moving on past X3 (i.e. doing anything other than prequels or spin-offs) is basically impossible without making entire previous plotlines redundant. Now, Fox could easily do the same thing, but they won't as long as their continuations keep making money.

Jun 6 - 05:39 PM

Cory

Cory B

Small pieces of obvious expository dialogue? Parts that border on campy? A plot with a foregone conclusion? Apparently these things are intrinsically bad, but I don't hear anyone giving the X-Men animated series such undeserved grief.

Yes, there are a few continuity issues. Yes, the absence of any true "first class" member except for Beast is more than a little disappointing. But somehow, none of that seems to matter when the film's story is this good, the action is this thrilling, and the staging is this impressive. All of the cast (except January Jones) is excellent. But most importantly, this film does so many things right that the previous films got wrong.

1) The action is character and story driven, instead of just an opportunity to showcase a bunch of loud and overcooked CGI. (Looking at you, X3)

2) There's an actual progression and sense of building tension as the story moves along. Even X2 didn't do this as well as First Class did. X3 and Wolverine had VERY uneven pacing. And on top of that, the payoff at the end is worth the build-up. (Something that Thor and Iron Man really dropped the ball on.)

3) First Class finally pits the X-Men against a group of bad guys that's as powerful as they are. In X2, the biggest threat was a flooding spillway. Magneto's group was hopelessly outmanned in X1 and his army in X3 was mostly filled with nameless, faceless scrubs. (You know your army is lame when the movie gives meaningful screen time to a guy who hugs people to death.) First Class takes the time to establish how dangerous the bad guys are, and as a result the final action scene had some genuine tension. Cheering on the good guys was worth it this time around because the bad guys were actually a threat to them.

First Class' direction, acting, and action were all the best in the series IMO. It juggles its vast cast of characters a lot better than the previous trilogy did (thanks to the absence of Wolverine), and finally gave Xavier and Magneto's characters the exploration they deserved. For me, this is top three among Marvel properties, right alongside Spider-Man 2 and the first Iron Man.

Jun 6 - 05:36 PM

Ryan N.

Ryan Nolan

Very well said and I agree with everything. This should count as a positive review on the RT meter.

Jun 6 - 08:54 PM

Andrew L.

Andrew Lim

Amen to that. Cory B truly said everything I wanted to say.

Jun 7 - 01:39 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

I like and agree with what you say and can appreciate that you didn't stick to your pre-movie arguments and could admit that the movie surprised you. So many people here get too invested with what they think a movie is going to be that they feel they have to stick with that assessment. You're one of the good ones, despite being a Packers fan.

Jun 7 - 07:34 AM

Cory

Cory B

Hey, if I'm going to pre-emptively hate, I BETTER be ready to man up and admit it when I end up being wrong. Stubbornly hating on the movie for the sake of saving face would make me a massive douchebag. And the Packers rule, just deal with it. :P

Jun 7 - 08:30 AM

Superzone

Link O'Fett

Well said Cory B. I agree with every point, especially what you said about the villains actually being a threat this time around. Kevin Bacon made for one hell of a powerful and scary villain.

Jun 8 - 06:46 PM

Martin F.

Martin Fister

While I agree with a lot of what you said Cory, I think you're being too generous to this movie. I went in expecting something really good after seeing the reviews and this movie, while entertaining, wasn't a GREAT start.

My biggest problem is actually tied to your third point. Sure, they finally got pitted against a comparable enemy. However, the whole Kevin Bacon team was a distraction from the point of this prequel building up a "first class."

First, Kevin Bacon's line of argument was SO similar to Magneto's that it was incredibly anticlimactic once the X-Men won and then Magneto... just repeats the exact same things as Kevin Bacon.

Second, while this movie was more character driven, a lot of the character development was forced on us. Mystique and Magneto's relationship development was very sparse and they swung from distant acquaintances to passionate lovers without a real convincing sequence to reach that point. Likewise, the relationship between Professor X and Magneto seemed forced. The last scene, they are calling one another brothers, when the movie didn't really build that relationship on scene to any extent to make that seem real.

Finally, and what bothered me most, the humans turning on the mutants was such a sudden thing that it lost a lot of the drama that this relationship had in the newer movies. Yes there were a few allusions to conflicts between the sides earlier in the movie, but when both the Americans and Russians decide after staring each other down to just suddenly just start firing on the mutants, it had no sense of believability to it.

It was good for sure, but this movie could have been a lot better, and I'm glad the RT team played devils advocate here to the constant praise in the reviews section.

Jun 9 - 08:03 AM

Martin F.

Martin Fister

Sorry, first time making a comment, I'm not sure why it deleted my formatting.

While I agree with a lot of what you said Cory, I think you're being too generous to this movie. I went in expecting something really good after seeing the reviews and this movie, while entertaining, wasn't a GREAT start.


My biggest problem is actually tied to your third point. Sure, they finally got pitted against a comparable enemy. However, the whole Kevin Bacon team was a distraction from the point of this prequel building up a "first class."


First, Kevin Bacon's line of argument was SO similar to Magneto's that it was incredibly anticlimactic once the X-Men won and then Magneto... just repeats the exact same things as Kevin Bacon.


Second, while this movie was more character driven, a lot of the character development was forced on us. Mystique and Magneto's relationship development was very sparse and they swung from distant acquaintances to passionate lovers without a real convincing sequence to reach that point. Likewise, the relationship between Professor X and Magneto seemed forced. The last scene, they are calling one another brothers, when the movie didn't really build that relationship on scene to any extent to make that seem real.


Finally, and what bothered me most, the humans turning on the mutants was such a sudden thing that it lost a lot of the drama that this relationship had in the newer movies. Yes there were a few allusions to conflicts between the sides earlier in the movie, but when both the Americans and Russians decide after staring each other down to just suddenly just start firing on the mutants, it had no sense of believability to it.


It was good for sure, but this movie could have been a lot better, and I'm glad the RT team played devils advocate here to the constant praise in the reviews section.


Hope this comes out better

Jun 9 - 08:06 AM

Cory

Cory B

It would actually mean a damn, because they would do a pure reboot of the series that would probably be a bit more true to the source material. I see this as essential, because moving on past X3 (i.e. doing anything other than prequels or spin-offs) is basically impossible without making entire previous plotlines redundant. Now, Fox could easily do the same thing, but they won't as long as their continuations keep making money.

Jun 6 - 05:39 PM

Alan Smithee

Alan Smithee

All the Marvel movies since Blade are "Marvel Studios." What you mean is the independent branch, which is still a part of Marvel Studios.

Jun 6 - 05:52 PM

Cory

Cory B

Why did you delete your previous post and take my pithy reply with it? LOL

Jun 6 - 06:53 PM

j l.

j l

no, it means that marvel studios doesnt own the rights to the x-men movie franchise. the x-men movies are produced by fox.

Jun 7 - 09:18 PM

Alan Smithee

Alan Smithee

It's still Marvel Studios Sherlock.
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0051941/

Jun 7 - 10:13 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

I think what he's saying is Marvel Studio's doesn't have final creative say. Some make the connection that this is important because when Marvel Studio's has final creative say they've never done a bad movie and when Sony/Fox has final creative say you've gotten a mixed bag with highs like this and the first two Spiderman's and X-Men and Lows like Ang Lee's Hulk, Ghost Rider, Both Fantastic Fours and X3.

Jun 8 - 08:00 AM

DBrock

David E-Brock

I actually felt Mystique had the worst acting performance,which is weird cause she is supposed to be a good actress, but I thought she butchered it. I liked the movie though. I felt all of Shaws henchmen were pointless characters however.

Jun 6 - 05:58 PM

Ryan N.

Ryan Nolan

The point of Shaw's henchmen was to help Shaw in his endeavors...And act cool and stylish while doing it. Were they all supposed to get 15 minute back stories too?

Jun 6 - 08:58 PM

Cory

Cory B

Uh... Shaw is going up against a team of mutants. He couldn't execute his evil plan without some help of his own.

Jun 7 - 08:34 AM

Murdoch

Murdoch +

I don't see it as hate directed towards January, just more of a realization that her ability to end up in "pretty girl with no emotion" type roles has less to do with her acting and more to do with a director's need for said caricature. . . . . . kinda like how Keanu Reeves is always playing the "always baked looking dude"

Jun 6 - 06:05 PM

Pat G.

Pat Guder

Good point. The only other thing I've ever seen her in is Anger Management so I'm not the best judge of her acting ability.

Jun 6 - 08:27 PM

Murdoch

Murdoch +

dude . . . . . .DO NOT watch the episode of SNL that she tried hosting . . . . . wait, what am i saying? . . . . . .you should TOTALLY watch her try and host an episode of SNL!

Jun 6 - 09:25 PM

Pat G.

Pat Guder

Does it fall under the so-bad-its-good category or so-bad-its-terrible-and-scarring-and-makes-me-feel-like-giving-up-on-the-world category?

Jun 6 - 10:39 PM

Murdoch

Murdoch +

the latter

Jun 6 - 11:24 PM

Murdoch

Murdoch +

First off, loved Inglourious Basterds . . . . Fassbender and Kruger were amazing in what little they were given to do in that film (wish i could say the same about Eli Roth) . . . . . Also, having kids randomly pick names was sooooo much better than the origins of how Logan became known as "wolverine" . . . . however, if the glaring continuity issues aren't obvious to you yet, i would like you to try to make sense of the following: Last Stand's beginning, Wolverine Origins' ending . . . and First class's ending . . . . see if you can figure out what happened when and who was still friends with whom.

Jun 6 - 06:19 PM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

Yes, but they've openly stated that they're only respecting the continuity of the first two films (since Singer was a producer for First Class). They basically said The Last Stand and Origins can suck it. They weren't even attempting to honor any plot lines from them.

Jun 6 - 07:48 PM

Murdoch

Murdoch +

Ahhhhhhh, yes . . . . . i believe that's known as the "Superman Returns defense" for ignoring sequels 3 & 4. . . . well, it still doesn't change the fact that enough of the original cast returned to warrant a legitimate continuation of the original storyline (see also: Schumacher's use of the original Alfred & Commissioner Gordon)

Jun 6 - 09:48 PM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

But it's a prequel. You're not providing a continuation of the original storyline. You're creating the storyline. Your example is from a sequel. Sequels always try to bring back original actors because moviegoers tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against drastic changes to characters. Thankfully, Rachel Dawes was a throwaway character anyways. Hence why Ratner used the original cast. He's the parallel to Schumacher in your analogy. Vaughn can use the same actors and still ignore The Last Stand because it hasn't happened. And we should all ignore Origins. If we don't believe in it, it can't hurt us in our dreams.

Jun 7 - 05:48 AM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

See I have no problem with what Vaughn did, this is what they do in comics all the time i.e. take the elements that work X-Men and X2 and don't allow yourself to be bogged down by what doesn't i.e. X3 and Wolverine. That's how comics continue to stay fresh. Imagine a world where future comic book writers were forced to adher to the existence of Howard the Duck or Frankencastle **shudders at the memory of Frankencastle, and not in a good way**

Jun 7 - 06:53 AM

Justin D.

Justin D.

I wanted to like this movie, I really did. It did have some entertaining elements and McAvoy and Fassbender do admirable jobs as Xavier and Magneto respectively, but the glaring errors in continuity, coupled with underdeveloped and even pointless characters (I'm looking at you Mystique, even though Jennifer Lawrence is so fine), and a hurried script, left me greatly disappointed. It also didn't help that, like Matt, I felt the choice of characters they picked to be the "first class" of X-Men was poor. They should have just started the franchise over from scratch, have it star the first five X-Men; Cyclops, Marvel Girl, the Beast, Iceman, and Angel (the real one not Zoey Kravitz, as fine as she is). This was a step in the right direction and much better than the last two films in the franchise, but Fox still hasn't found a way to fix all the problems. Here's hoping the next one is better.

Jun 6 - 06:48 PM

Pammie B.

Pamela Bryant

I was also a bit disappointed with this movie. However I did like it and as you said, they are moving in the right direction if they are going to reboot the franchise. I think it's hard for them (the producers/directors) to make something fresh from something that is so dear to so many people and to correct the mistakes from the previous films. So I applaud them for trying and I think they succeeded. The total 60s feel was great. The outfits and the side burns were perfect. Yes some things were rushed and a little cheesy, but I will definitely see it again. I know I am just one person, but if it does well, maybe there will be another, and like you said, make it perfect this time.

Jun 6 - 07:27 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

Mystique underdeveloped and pointless? Did you watch the same movie I did? She had so much going on it was ridiculous and was at the center of everything. It's called sub-text my friend. Look it up. I do agree with you though about the choice of supporting mutants, but the original cast is equally as lame as any of the choices they used. Plus as has been previously stated they couldn't use Jean or Scott or Bobby because they'd already been introduced in the first movies and would have been too young to have been in their early 30's in the early 2000's. They would have been in their late 50's at least. They did the best they could while working in the context of the first movie's which eliminated a ton of quality X-characters.

Jun 7 - 07:40 AM

Justin D.

Justin D.

I think you missed the part where I said they were better off starting from scratch, as in, starting everything over again. A restart could very much star the first five actual X-Men, who were a great set of characters with a creative and cool set of powers. I guarantee you that they would have made this movie far more interesting than the cast we had here.

The reference to Mystique was towards her pointlessness, not how she was underdeveloped (although she was a bit of that too). I want you to think back, and I mean really think back. What do we know about Mystique from the film? What did we learn about her besides that she wasn't comfortable w/ her true appearance? Where did she come from? How did she find her way to Prof. X's kitchen? As the film progressed how did anything in her arc affect the narrative? What did she actually do in this movie? The truth is that Mystique was only cast because she was in the first three films. Her character had no effect on the overall plot,and you could have removed her entirely and no significant changes would have occurred. The only subtext behind her character was that the writers couldn't think of a better way to have her join Magneto's Brotherhood.

It seems to me that you've come down with a case of "fanboyism. I knew that fans would go into this film self deluded into believing it would be perfect. The blinders were put on and the defenses were set to maximum to protect their fragile egos from being hurt by the truth; that, while a valiant effort, this film's structure is broken in quite a few places, especially involving character development.

Jun 7 - 11:56 AM

misterkyle1901

kyle T

All this talk about having the Five "original X-men" is odd. I understand the need to follow story lines found in the comics (none of which I have read), but I believe that a set of five X-men to have readers follow in their adventures were only utilized to adhere to the outline of a superhero oriented comic. I'm glad we don't get that in the movies, otherwise we'd be watching a slightly better version of Fantastic Four. I don't want X-men to be a superhero set of movies. We already have Marvel connecting Thor and Iron Man and Captain America and the Hulk (all of which are becoming more and more cartoon-y and childish--which is fine), and all those sort of bore me. X-men is more exciting because it does not follow the superhero mold. So while superhero movies bore me (sorry), this movie was really quite good.

Jun 7 - 04:38 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

I did miss that, but even if they did start over again you would to have fully developed all those characters again or you would have had to sacrifice the heart of the movie which was Xavier and Charles and Yes Mystique. You don't know her past because that's part of the intrigue of the character. Why do you think she's called Mystique? As for what she added she was central to the dynamic of the plots for Erik, Charles and Hank. Without her you wouldn't have gotten Magnetos love for mutants and preference for the exotic over the normal, that kitchen scene you deride totally establishes exactly who Charles is and his reason for being. Also without her to play off of Beast would have been far less interesting. The premise of the normal vs the extraordinary that her, Hank and Erik play out is central to what the Xmen are all about. You're right a lot of her performance was playing forward, but I thought she did a fantastic job. Outside of McAvoy and Fassbender I thought her performance was the most integral to the film and nuanced, but hey you have your opinion and I have mine. I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong :)

Jun 7 - 05:50 PM

Justin D.

Justin D.

You are mistaken. Mystique wasn't important to anyone's character arc, in fact it was quite the opposite. Charles was there to teach her that she was not alone, and that there was nothing wrong w/ her powers (I don't know that my simply mentioning the kitchen scene could be construed as derision...you do know what the word means, right?). Magneto was there to teach her that there was nothing wrong w/ her physical appearance. Beast was there to show her what happens when you obsess over trying to be something you're not. Her arc hindered on the interactions she had w/ the people around her, and ultimately no other character was affected by her presence. Xavier was still Xavier with or w/o her, as was Magneto (they could have used any character w/ a physical mutation to establish his interest in the exotic if anyone really needed to see that), and as was Beast. I don't knock Jennifer Lawrence' performance. She did a well enough job, but that doesn't change that her character was still pointless and not at all integral. But as you say, we both have our own opinions. You have yours, and I have the one that's right. :)

@yowazup13 - I never mentioned anything about bringing in the original 5 to make it a better super hero movie. I mentioned it simply because they were the first class, and in my opinion would have made this story better. By the way, whether you want it to be or not, these are super hero movies. The characters have super powers, fight evil, have code names, and wear costumes, but just because they're heroes doesn't mean they have to be one dimensional. You can have a super hero story that's narrative goes beyond conventional genre tropes.

Jun 7 - 08:13 PM

Justin D.

Justin D.

Oh and just to let you know, I'm not trying to start a flame war here. Snarkiness and sarcasm aside, I have no problem w/ your opinion. I don't agree w/ it, but so what? If you like this movie then you like the movie. I don't think it's terrible, I just think it's a slightly defective product. But that's my belief and I in no way am trying to influence yours.

Jun 7 - 08:27 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

Not flame warring my friend, I enjoy the debate and the snarkiness is just spice to add flavor, but what I think you're missing is you admit her role hinges on everyone else, but still call it pointless. Basically you're admitting she effects a large number of characters in the film, a ton of their character arcs and personality traits wouldn't be evident to the audience without her, but still say she's pointless. Do you know what that word means. Of course they could have gotten other people to fill those roles, but could they have gotten one person who was who was already established in the series and audiences had a built in connection to that could have filled all the roles she did? Also, could they have gotten one that could be played by someone as good as Jennifer Lawrence? I realize there are a lot of good young stars roaming around Hollywood these days, but Oscar winning 17 and unders are still hard to find. She may not have taken the central role and driven the action, but that wasn't the purpose of her role. She was a supporting actress and I thought she filled that role ideally. She set off a ton of story lines and themes and as you say she delivered an admirable performance. I would say great performance.

Jun 8 - 05:34 AM

Justin D.

Justin D.

Reread what I said. Nowhere do I say she affects the other characters. Charles taught her, Erik taught her, Beast taught her. At no time does she teach anyone else. Their characters changed her, not the other way around. If you cut her out of the film their arcs would be the same. Magneto would still want to kill Shaw and champion for the supremacy of mutantkind, while Xavier would try and convince Erik to let it go, and champion for mutant equality. Also Beast would still have used his serum which turned him into an ape/cat. The characters would still develop as they were supposed to and no one would have missed her. Mystique was written to be interesting, and Lawrence played her well enough, but that didn't make her necessary. Mystique is just an example of the kind of half-assed character development that permeates this picture. Maybe if the Singer, Vaughn, and the rest of the creative staff had taken more time they could have found a way to make her useful, but alas, no such luck. And Mystique is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pointless characters.

Jun 8 - 10:39 AM

dj Mark

Mark Marquis

The Raven I saw in First Class was vastly different from the Raven I saw in the first 3 films. First Class was simply her starting point. It's true that none of the characters in First Class were as affected by Raven as she was by them, but I kind of think that's the point. At the end of the film we saw the consequences those effects had on her character. She made a choice. In subsequent movies she will evolve to become more like the Mystique we know and I would bet that she will most definitely affect everyone, especially Xavier, who will undoubtedly face the consequences of taking her for granted.

Jun 8 - 01:05 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

I actually agree that there were many underdeveloped and weak characters, but id ask. How would you have developed those characters without making a 7 hr movie or sacrificing time with Charles and Erik? What I really disagree with is that Mystique was one of them. Remove her and Charles is just a spoiled womanizing rich kid who wants to save mutant kind on a lark. Mystique gives him a valid personal reason for his cause besides generic altruism or self interest. Erik would have wanted to kill Shaw, but that wasn't the extent of his goals or depth. For him Mystique was a shoostone for revealing his greater end game to the audience as well as marking his transition to the earlier movies which was interesting in its own right. Lastly Beast wouldn't have taken the serum because it was distilled from Ravens shapeshifter DNA and if he did it wouldn't have had nearly the depth it had because of here interactions and screentime spent with him acting as the counter argument he should have listened to. Ipso fatso, I am right and you're a dooty head :)

Jun 9 - 05:05 PM

Lion O

Larry Oliver

The Raven in the first films barely had a personality to begin with; the only thing I could say is that Mystique hates humans with a passion

Jun 28 - 04:30 PM

Justin D.

Justin D.

I can't wait to get into those.

Jun 6 - 06:50 PM

Justin D.

Justin D.

When they did that quick cut to the only black guy in the room when he mentioned slavery, I couldn't help but say aloud, "Really?" It was funny but I couldn't bring myself to laugh right away.

Jun 6 - 06:52 PM

Cory

Cory B

Why did you delete your previous post and take my pithy reply with it? LOL

Jun 6 - 06:53 PM

Pammie B.

Pamela Bryant

I'm with you on the Darwin character. They killed him off too fast. I read somewhere that in the comic, he was killed off before but then returned because he had converted himself to pure energy. So maybe he will return.....speaking of too skinny....January Jones. Why are all comic book women drawn curvaceously, but when they put them on the screen, they choose the thinnest women possible?

Jun 6 - 07:01 PM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

I've avoided talking specifically about Darwin since it's a bit of a spoiler to give away a character's fate for people that didn't get a chance to see the film opening weekend. But in that situation, if I had to choose between more Darwin...or Banshee...well, give me Darwin. Banshee reminded me of a watered-down Ron Weasley, and I had enough of him after a few minutes.

Jun 7 - 05:54 AM

Superzone

Link O'Fett

I gotta disagree with you on Banshee. I thought he was a great character. He seemed like the character that had the most heart out of the young X-Men, and that scene when he finally was able to fly gave me goosebumps. I thought it was a great scene.

Jun 8 - 06:41 PM

Bigbrother

Big Brother

Really? That was the one aspect of Jones' Frost that I thought was spot on. She definately looked the part with her skinny waste and **cough cough** ample topside. I just thought she completely missed the characters essence. So far outside of Betty on Mad Men she's shown me nothing. It's entirely possible she just has zero range and can only play herself or needs the role to fit her style instead of vice versa.

Jun 7 - 07:06 AM

Luvagoo

Tallulah Robinson

Haha I thought this too; I was like hmm, I'd really like to see this woman in a not-cold-bitch role. But I've heard she's a cold bitch herself, so...

Jun 10 - 01:54 AM

Pammie B.

Pamela Bryant

I was also a bit disappointed with this movie. However I did like it and as you said, they are moving in the right direction if they are going to reboot the franchise. I think it's hard for them (the producers/directors) to make something fresh from something that is so dear to so many people and to correct the mistakes from the previous films. So I applaud them for trying and I think they succeeded. The total 60s feel was great. The outfits and the side burns were perfect. Yes some things were rushed and a little cheesy, but I will definitely see it again. I know I am just one person, but if it does well, maybe there will be another, and like you said, make it perfect this time.

Jun 6 - 07:27 PM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

Yes, but they've openly stated that they're only respecting the continuity of the first two films (since Singer was a producer for First Class). They basically said The Last Stand and Origins can suck it. They weren't even attempting to honor any plot lines from them.

Jun 6 - 07:48 PM

Murdoch

Murdoch +

Ahhhhhhh, yes . . . . . i believe that's known as the "Superman Returns defense" for ignoring sequels 3 & 4. . . . well, it still doesn't change the fact that enough of the original cast returned to warrant a legitimate continuation of the original storyline (see also: Schumacher's use of the original Alfred & Commissioner Gordon)

Jun 6 - 09:48 PM

Confounded

Matthew Bertram

But it's a prequel. You're not providing a continuation of the original storyline. You're creating the storyline. Your example is from a sequel. Sequels always try to bring back original actors because moviegoers tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against drastic changes to characters. Thankfully, Rachel Dawes was a throwaway character anyways. Hence why Ratner used the original cast. He's the parallel to Schumacher in your analogy. Vaughn can use the same actors and still ignore The Last Stand because it hasn't happened. And we should all ignore Origins. If we don't believe in it, it can't hurt us in our dreams.

Jun 7 - 05:48 AM

Pat G.

Pat Guder

Good point. The only other thing I've ever seen her in is Anger Management so I'm not the best judge of her acting ability.

Jun 6 - 08:27 PM

Murdoch

Murdoch +

dude . . . . . .DO NOT watch the episode of SNL that she tried hosting . . . . . wait, what am i saying? . . . . . .you should TOTALLY watch her try and host an episode of SNL!

Jun 6 - 09:25 PM

Pat G.

Pat Guder

Does it fall under the so-bad-its-good category or so-bad-its-terrible-and-scarring-and-makes-me-feel-like-giving-up-on-the-world category?

Jun 6 - 10:39 PM

Murdoch

Murdoch +

the latter

Jun 6 - 11:24 PM

Larry C.

Larry Cunningham

I agree. I thought she was one of the better characters in the movie. I understand the criticism based off the previous stuff she's done, but that was what the role called for! It's like hating on Ron Perlman in any movie he does. Reinhardt, Hellboy, Clay from Sons of Anarchy, they're all the same character to me! And they are all badass! And let's not forget January Jones is GREAT eye-candy! Another thing needed to play Emma Frost!

Jun 6 - 08:48 PM

What's Hot On RT

Critics Consensus
Critics Consensus

Transcendence is a Sci-Fi Snooze

Total Recall
Total Recall

Johnny Depp's Best Movies

24 Frames
24 Frames

Picture gallery of movie bears

Good Friday
Good Friday

50 movie posters gallery

Find us on:                 
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile