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

I can't wait to get into those.

Jun 6 - 06:50 PM

Mike Hetzer

If it is these guy's job to question every aspect of the film, I suspect they never get any real enjoyment out of going to the movies.

Jun 6 - 11:13 AM

David Roberts

Seriously. I could not finish reading this half assed critique. Everyone has an opinion that will vary but I find this review to be far too nit picky to give any sort of time to care about.

I think the biggest problem with people reviewing this movie is how soon they are to forget just how bad X3 Last Stand and XMO Wolverine were as franchise installaments. By any account they could have killed it altogether but fortunately their box office totals gave Fox enough of a push.

To me, First Class is the Batman Begins of the X-Men franchise with X3 and Xmen Origins serving as Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Now you can argue that Batman Begins is a superior film but that�??s not the point. First Class desparately needed to right the ship and to that point I think it in a fantastic sense. The pieces are in play for a superior sequel that can further explore the X Men dynamic. And for further thoughts on First Class, just go to Cory B�??s post below which I think nails it on every level.

Jun 7 - 03:50 PM

"The whole plot being hitched to the Cuban missile crisis, though, deflated the tension a little too much; we know how that turned out, which isn't necessarily fatal to the movie, but the plot builds so heavily upon it that we're invited to sit in suspense for an outcome that is forgone." I'm going to give two completely different ends of the spectrum to why this is a bit of a purist critique. First, I personally didn't like Titanic, but it made like a billion dollars. I don't remember hearing a lot of, "Well, what's point? We know how it ends." But you don't. You know how the Cuban Missle Crisis ends, but you don't know how it's ends for the characters. Second, Inglorious Basterds (among others, but this is my best example) have shown that you can never assume fiction will adhere to history. For all intents and purposes, the X-Men universe is not our universe. And film adaptations go even one universe further away from the source material.

And personally, I loved the 60s camp factor. Technicolor reactors, training montages, almost nothing spy-related in the early Bond films was realistic. Let them get serious in the 70s, that's all it's good for. And you have to figure nicknames are just tossed off on a whim. If you think about it, most of the X-men codenames are a bit silly, so why not have them just tossed off humorously by kids? I highly doubt any of the guys in Top Gun had long, drawn out, meaningful stories about why their called Goose or Iceman.

I felt the movie had its share of flaws as well. Jones was painful to watch; and I would've preferred some of the supporting mutants got more screen time and others less. And I'm not quite sure where the huge glaring continuity issues are other than some characters that popped up for a split second in the original trilogy are out of their timeline here, but I also haven't revisited the originals in quite some time (I know Hank McCoy was human on some news program in one of the original movies, so he couldn't have turned blue in the 60s). But otherwise, I like them having Mystique and Azazel meeting to set up Nightcrawler into the timeline, and most of the Magneto storyline still held up to the brief flashbacks from the first movies.

I liked it though. The average score is 7.4/10. I'd say that's about right. No masterpiece, but still a great way to start fresh.

Jun 6 - 11:17 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Adam Mata

--nods--

The first thing I thought of while reading the part of Luke's review about the plot being a foregone conclusion was... Well first off this is a prequel, so you better be ready to know that you're going to walk in there knowing quite a bit already. Furthermore, I thought adding the Cuban Missile Crisis to the plot line was brilliant. It helps the audience connect more to the X-Men Universe.

Great job on detailing that if a movie does end up 'accurately' depicting history (Titanic), moviegoers don't go to the movies thinking 'what's the point since we know the end result to the event.' Even more so on the Inglorious Bastards example that should serve as a reminder that these are not documentaries but fiction movies meant to entertain, so don't go into movies thinking the ending is a foregone conclusion.

Jun 6 - 10:28 PM

Luke Simpson

The "slavery" line, and then the next shot...

Anyone else have no idea how to react to that?

Jun 6 - 11:25 AM

Ryan Fujitani

The laughing guy in our theater got a good chuckle out of that.

Jun 6 - 11:44 AM

Jeff Giles

My theater had a guy blowing raspberries at the screen.

Jun 6 - 04:17 PM

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

Why doesn't this make sense? He was making references to historic events. For those who do not know, the USA once lawfully allowed people to keep slaves, most of which were black. Making that statement and then looking to him was his way of trying to convince him to join his cause because he could relate. Makes sense to me.

Jun 6 - 10:15 PM

Thomas H.

It shows that you have a grasp on the obvious. The others do not.

Jun 7 - 02:37 AM

Oh boy . . . . at the risk of possibly offending some while DEFINITELY offending others, allow me to explain the inherent silliness of that line & cutaway: Slavery, like the holocaust, was real . . . . . Persecution of mutants, however, is fictional. So when you try to add drama to your fictional story by reminding people of how this threat is exactly like that other thing that actually happened . . . . well. . . . . its a bit like exploitation. . . . . . . . . Case in point: for the last 10 years, terrorism has been a very popular theme in international cinema. As such, many foreign directors have addressed the current war on terror as the backdrop for many a revenge/military flicks . . . . and do you know what plot device frustrates/cracks me up the most? When you find out that the main character's mother/daughter/brother/father or possibly all of the above were either a) At the WTC when it got attacked or b)Were in the airplanes that flew into the towers . . . Now i'm not saying foreign nationals didn't lose their lives in the attacks, but for filmmakers to play that card just to make the audience feel the depths of the protagonist's real-world pain, just so they can cheer him on when he finally kills his way to a Bin Laden stand-in and then proceeds to skull fuck his corpse while that country's national anthem plays in the background. . . . You just can't help but ask yourself: Was invoking the attacks of 9/11 really that necessary for the story, or did someone throw that in there just to make the fake character's fake mission seem more "REAL"?

Jun 7 - 07:57 AM

I'm still sticking with my guns that this wasn't silly or bad. Yes, it is a comic book movie, but we're supposed to believe in what is going on and that they existed in our timeline, not some alternate reality. To make mention of things that happened does not bother me. I'm just wondering if the comment would have been about the oppression of Jews and then the cut scene went to Magneto, if we'd be having this discussion.

Jun 7 - 02:47 PM

Ethan Saugey

Well I'm grateful January Jones only had a few lines to say... I've seen her in a couple of movies now, and she's been rather horrible in both of them.
I didn't mind the connection between Xavier and Mystique, but it still baffled me...
But the worst part of the movie for me? When Magneto cracks Frost's diamond neck with a metal BEDPOST! For crying out loud, did no one involved in this film take chemistry?
These are just minor things though. Excellent movie overall, and my favorite of the series. Highly recommendable.

Jun 6 - 11:37 AM

Noah Simon

@TheInfamousToad
yeah, jones was terrible (TERRIBLE) in unknown

Jun 6 - 04:45 PM

I did say to my friend, "When can brass, or some other standard metal shatter diamond?"

Jun 6 - 10:16 PM

While Diamond is the hardest substance on Earth, I'm not sure if it's the toughest. I think you can actually chip or break diamond with a hydraulic press or similar.

Jun 7 - 07:01 AM

Or one Magneto and a bedframe, apparently. LOL

Jun 7 - 02:44 PM

Larry Oliver

Diamond or not, Jones was terrible. She sounded like a bored sorority girl. Emma Frost is a great character and this movie didn't do her any favors

Jun 28 - 04:26 PM

Ryan Nolan

I though it was great! Best Marvel movie yet; it had the character development of the 1st two X-men and much improved action on X3 and Wolverine.

This write-up is contradicting the website they work which gathered reviews for a recorded score of 87%. They were so lenient on X3, a movie with horrible dialog, a thrown together story and some pretty boring action sequences, yet were "disappointed" by this smart, fast paced and very enjoyable film. I think they were just guys who are a little too caught up in the whole, "not like the comic book" thing. Get over it, it was a very good movie.

Jun 6 - 12:09 PM

David Roberts

I agree. I don't know if it has to do with the expectations going into it but they were far too critical for such a smart, quick paced and well directed movie.

Jun 7 - 03:54 PM

Thomas Helmka

After the horrid X3 and Wolverine this felt like a breath of fresh air! Fassbender just ate up the screen, honestly after seeing this movie I'm suprised any mutant would join Xavier, Magneto clearly had 10x charisma and a solid grasp of the reality of mutants. My complaints are total "fanboy" stuff

-Bacon is way to skinny to be Sebastion Shaw and the Nazi revisionst history was way too far from canon...
-Why create a cool character like Darwin to just throw him away?

But on the whole I can forgive this kind of stuff for the cool factor of such things as

-Emma giving the Russian General some "mind"
-Magneto pulling that Sub out of the water
-Beasts transformation

I think I will probably go see this movie one more time before it leaves the threatres...

Jun 6 - 01:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

I don't really understand why everybody's hating on January Jones. Emma Frost is a very cold character in the comics (not so much recently), and does not show a lot of emotion (that is why one of her powers is having a very hard exterior), so the fact that she doesn't show much emotion falls in line with the character. Emma Frost is really just something to look at.

Jun 6 - 03:43 PM

Jeff Giles

I was expecting her to be cold, but I thought she seemed sort of medicated instead.

Jun 6 - 04:17 PM

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

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

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

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

the latter

Jun 6 - 11:24 PM

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

I got the coldness, but I didn't get the underlaying heat and wit that I associate with Emma Frost. She's a seductress, a coniving witch and all around just someone you don't want to mess with. I couldn't see the Emma Frost from the books just taking the abuse from Shaw. In the movie she seemed more like a damaged lovestruck teenager rather than the vindictive bitch goddess she comes across in the comics. It was like Betty Draper playing dominatrix dress up and that's all I've ever seen from her as an actress. The look was dead on, but the substance was lacking

Jun 7 - 07:26 AM

That requires time to set up, and the movie is already 2 and a half hours long. Put that together with the amount of other characters in the movie, some character development goes by the way side. They had to pick and choose who would get the screen time, and while she appeared on the screen for a respectable amount of time, she was more of a plot mover than important character. Unfortunately, there is only so long an audience will sit and watch a movie.

Jun 7 - 07:47 AM

See I don't know, I think with the right actress and the right line you could have done it with one sentence. In the scene where Shaw dismisses her instead of putting on the poot and dutifully going to get his ice if she'd leaned in and said "Speak to me again in that tone and I'll twist your mind into light spreadable jelly and lick it off my fingertips as it drips from your ear." **walk slowly away and maybe turn around at the door and give him a playful smile or giggle**. Of course I'm not a professional screen writer, but I think something like that would have gone a long way toward establishing credibility and keeping more toward the spirit of the character. She was one of the few people in the film Shaw was vulnerable to. They could have used that. Again I don't know if this is a failing of the writers or Jones, but I am leaning toward the latter because I would think in the wrong hands lines like that can come off in what I'll term a Berry-esque fashion..."What happen's to a toad when it's struck by lightening?"

Jun 7 - 09:11 AM

Good point. Now that I think about it, I remember several characters from different movies who have less screen time and are more developed. But we also don't know what scenes were left on the cutting room floor that may have helped that development along.

Jun 7 - 09:22 AM

By the way, that may be the single best line I've have ever read or heard in my life!

Jun 7 - 10:16 AM

You should have read some of my arguments with Gordon before. I hated him with the fire of a thousand suns once.

Jun 7 - 11:46 AM

In defense of Jones casting I can't think of someone who looks more like Emma Frost and casting someone who looked ridiculous in the costume might have been equally distracting. Maybe Basinger in her heyday or Reese Witherspoon could have given the character more gravitas.

Jun 7 - 11:49 AM

Mark Marquis

I disagree about the line of dialogue to Shaw over the ice cubes. The story set up Shaw as the biggest Badass in the room, and only the combined forces of Xavier and Magneto would bring him down. Having Frost remind him of how vulnerable he was to her would have undermined that. I do agree that her performance could have been more nuanced and interesting but for the purpose of this movie (not comic adherence) I just saw her as a Bond girl and she ful-Filled the role nicely. ;)

Jun 7 - 12:39 PM

Easily overcome with a raised glass or a goofy smile after she leaves from Shaw to show that he's not really worried or a little titilated. I think Frost would have been better as his partner rather than his henchman. In the comics he was the Black King and she was the White Queen of the Hellfire Club and I never felt that dynamic was weak. As for the Bond girl thing, for me the best Bond girls Pussy Galore, Ursula Andreas, Octopussy were all sexy because they were strong, I hesitate to use the word empowered because it's a PC buzzword, but I can barely remember the floozies. Do you think Pussy Galore would have taken that kind of crap without burying the icepick in his brainstem?

Jun 7 - 05:31 PM

Also, DJ Mark, she reminds him how vulnerable he is to Xavier which doesn't really make any sense either. I'm fully aware you're vulnerable to a telepath, but I, a telepath am still going to take crap from you because *insert Barbie giggle* I'm just a girl.

Jun 8 - 05:17 AM

Mark Marquis

Yeah, I see your point. I think the Black King/White Queen concept you mentioned would have been pretty awesome for these two characters.

Jun 8 - 12:57 PM

Tumelo Drametu

I personally loved First Class. It is my favorite movie of the year so far and my favorite Marvel film. 10/10.

Jun 6 - 03:45 PM

Noah Simon

Oh plz, people! First Class was amazing! Continuity is not a criteria for how good a movie is!

Jun 6 - 04:43 PM

No, it isn't. Not when the choices are remaining true to shit like X3 and Wolverine or ignoring them and creating something better.

Jun 6 - 05:18 PM

Alan Smithee

While this still had the feel of a typical popcorn flick like the rest, this was the first time for the X film franchise that I was actually invested in the characters and their plight. I've been saying all along that the concentration camp scene is the only emotionally engaging aspect of the prior films. I think Vaughn realized this which is why he used it as a starting point and then expanding from there. Thus when it's on the mark it hits it out of the park further than any Marvel Studios property yet.

Jun 6 - 05:11 PM

I WISH this was a Marvel Studios property...

Jun 6 - 05:19 PM

This comment has been removed.

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

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

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

Jun 6 - 06:53 PM

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

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

Jun 7 - 10:13 PM

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

Vince Mcmahon

Agreed. Marvel Studios is quickly becoming the most overrated production company in the film industry. All 3 X films with Singer's name attached to them were superior to the Avenger's prequels.

Sep 23 - 09:22 AM

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 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 Lim

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

Jun 7 - 01:39 AM

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

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

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 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 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

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 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Larry Cunningham

I did like this movie, but I refuse to call it a reboot. There were way too many references to the previous films. The only reason to even consider this a reboot was the continuity and that was this films only real flaw. You can blame FOX for that.
If only Marvel Studios could get this franchise back under their wing! Let's face it! The only 2 people who where correctly cast in the previous films are Patrick Stewart as Xavier and Tyler Mane as Sabertooth (kinda).
Jackman as Wolverine, while he did own the role, is too tall, and pretty, nice to be Wolverine. McKellen is good as Magneto, but that final shot of Fassbender in First Class was PERFECT!
Actually "rebooting" this series and having Jean, Cyclops, Beast, Angel, and Iceman as the "First Class" is what they should have done, but FOX will never give up the cash cow that is Hugh Jackman as Wolverine
Continuity aside, I thought it was a damn good movie.

Jun 6 - 09:09 PM

Jackman is too tall... I have read this countless times. Is there a wealth of 5'3" (Marvel's character bio listed height) actors out there that resemble Wolverine in the slightest? Thinking males that are that height aren't highly sought after by Hollywood.

Jun 6 - 10:23 PM

Danny DeVito.

Jun 7 - 05:49 AM

Exactly, from some of his points I think Larry C is actually Brett Ratner in disguise :)

Jun 7 - 07:42 AM

AL Green

I think less people would complain about Jackmans height If all the Xmen movies werent a wolverine love fest. Put something front and center and it will get picked apart. When i was a mall rat I use to read Xmen comics while I was there instead of paying for them. Sorry Stan Lee. One of the major things that made me like Wolverine as a kid was that he was so incredibly small but feared no one *except for Cyber*. I also thought it was hilarious that whenever him and cyclops had their verbal tussles about Jean he would always be looking up at cyclops while Cyclops would be looking down at him with his arms crossed. There are those who say that it is nitpicking bringing up *costumes & height* or whatever. They usually point out how comics constantly change writers and artist in their arguments which is true. What i find fascinating is that some of those people seem to think that Jackman is the only person who can play Wolverine because he *resembles* Wolverine while simultaneously saying that comics constantly change artist. Apparently defending Jackman as Wolverine because *he looks just like him in the face* is ok, but bringing up anything else about him that someone feels was off in the movie is nitpicking.

Jun 7 - 08:43 AM

I don't think Jackman is the only person who can play Wolverine and think you give most people the haircut and they're going to look as similar or moreso than Jackman. I've honestly never heard that argument. I've heard that he embodies the character and plays him well which is hard to argue with, but I was actually in favor of Dougray Scott playing him based on physical appearance and way back in the day Mel Gibson. I think if anything recently Wolverine has been made to look like Jackman instead of vice versa. Much the same way as the William Wallace Memorial at Stirling Castle bears a striking resemblence to a certain Road Warrior/Lethal Weapon.

Jun 7 - 09:15 AM

AL Green

Oh shit, I always thought of Mel Gibson to. I thought I was the only one. Now, in his mid 50s he would make a great wolve for The Age Of Apocalypse.

Jun 7 - 09:24 AM

I think what planted the idea in my mind was from an episode of Spiderman and his Amazing Friends that featured the X-Men and they gave Wolverine an Australian accent. Ever since I saw that I couldn't get the image of Mel Gibson as him out of my head until as we can both agree he got too old to play anything but Days of Future Past Wolvie.

Jun 7 - 10:01 AM

Larry Cunningham

I'm not one of those fanboys that needs to have everything exactly like the comics. Idris Elba SLAYED the role of Heimdall in Thor, but being that Wolverine's height is part of his character it would have been nice. I believe Jackman is 6'3"! Not only was he the tallest actor in the X-Men movies (Sabertooth and Colossus excluded) but he's probably the tallest actor in ALL the Marvel movies!
I'll say it again, Jackman owns the role. But if a reboot is to be done that is something they have to correct.

Jun 7 - 06:40 PM

Adam Talbott

sorry but a 5'3 wolverine would suck

Jun 8 - 02:30 PM