Just Pillow Talk v Marvel Comics. Number 6 (part 1): THE X-MEN

Sadly for Just Pillow Talk, this is Brian Singer’s version of the X-men. So instead of a plethora of scantily/ latex clad babes he’s got to endure a boring extended gay metaphor with nary a boob in sight, limited action, and lots and lots of crying.

I always thought this series would be too much for him, and it appears that he agrees. Probably the thought of doing 5 of them in a row. As a result, he’s sensibly decided to split it up, and here is his first attempt: X-men.

Me, I think this is shit. I thought it was shit at the time, and nothing I’ve seen has changed my opinion. Still, over to you Just Pillow Talk:

I’m changing gears a bit here and breaking up my review of X-men into individual reviews since I’ve gotten a bit more Droidesque in my delays. I think it has to do with the overwhelming thought of watching all five X-men films and reviewing them in a Frankish sort of way. I’m a bit mental, but not that mental. With that in mind, and being labeled a mutant bastard, I give you the first X-men…

X-men (2000)

Back when this came out and seeing it in the theaters, I enjoyed it. To say that there had been successful funny book adaptations previously is quite the joke. This is also the first one to really tackle the team concept and deal with so many characters. Sure I had issues with it, but overall I thought it was a step in the right direction.

Time has not been kind to this one either, much like my thoughts on Spiderman.

First, there really are not many ‘action’ pieces, and the ones that are in there are very small in nature. I don’t know the budget, nor can I be bothered to look it up, but clearly they went a bit skimpy in the special effects department. Everything feels restrained, like a “Heroes” episode almost. Second, having a lot of different superheroes and villains has always been the kiss of death to a funny book movie. No one seems to be able to incorporate all the different characters into a recipe of success, and here is no different. All the focus is on Wolverine followed by Rogue, and then Jean Grey. So let’s tackle them first. Hugh Jackman looks like Wolverine from the shoulders up, and that’s always been my problem. The dude is short, a “runt” if I remember correctly Colossus calling him. Are you telling me you couldn’t find a dude to fit the Wolverine mode a bit better? In the grand scheme of things, that’s small potatoes. Rogue is totally uninteresting. Now, I really know nothing about how she initially got her powers, etc, but couldn’t they have shown her use other mutants’ powers when she “borrows” them? I don’t think in the entire series they every show that. I think that would have been cool to show. Again, not sure how or if it was ever showed in the comics, but the whole Wolverine-Jean Grey thing going on…dumb. It’s pointless and adds nothing to the story.

So what about the rest of our heroes? They get zilch to do. Cyclops utters a few lines here and there and dislikes Wolverine. Storm should have whipped out her boobs and Iceman seems to me to be too fucking young. Er, wasn’t he one of the original X-men? Is it really that hard to continually fuck up shit like that? For the Villains, I think they are cooler first of all. Tyler Mane has the build and look of Sabertooth, so at least they got his look right in my mind. Rebecca and her painted blue body are quite yummy as Mystique, and Ray Park is okay as The Toad. I’m sure he doesn’t look anything like the comic book, but for the movie I don’t have an issue with him.

Oh yes, now we get to Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellan). I happen to like both these gents, but there’s something missing with their performances. They have been on opposite sides for quite a while now…I would expect more passion and a battle of wits/souls what have you, than what we got. These two are representing opposite ideologies of how the mutant race will survive and how they will deal with the human element. I also don’t get any ‘menace’ from Magneto, I mean, the dude is one of the most powerful mutants alive with a specific agenda to advance the mutant cause regardless of human casualties. I want a bad ass Magneto, not a very reserved Ian McKellan.

While watching it, there was some instances where I thought it made no sense. For instance, at the train station when they go after Rogue, where the fuck do our heroes go so that Magneto and his band of mutants can just waltz out through the front door. Um, paging Storm and Cyclops. So the boy lost his visor after Toad took it off, but what did Toad do with it and what did Cyclops do? Keep his eyes closed on the ride back to the Mansion? At the end of the movie, Wolverine stabs himself and the bar that Magneto pinned him to the side with releases him. Why? Makes no sense. And doesn’t Storm have the ability to fly using her wind powers? Why wouldn’t she accompany Wolverine to the top of the Statue of Liberty to try and destroy Magneto’s machine? Pah.

I am being overly generous I think, and giving it one adamantium claw out of four.

Pillow out

BAMF!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Jarv

Workshy cynic, given to posting reams of nonsense on the internet and watching films that have inexplicably got a piss poor reputation.

195 responses to “Just Pillow Talk v Marvel Comics. Number 6 (part 1): THE X-MEN”

  1. Jarv says :

    I have no idea why the html isn’t working. I think WordPress is misbehaving again

  2. koutchboom says :

    Yeah I always thought they went too old looking with Ian McKellan, mainly cause he looks fucking old. Patrick at least doesn’t look like your grampa’s grampa. It would’ve been cool if they got someone like James Caan, of course Sean Connery would’ve been good even if he may be older than Ian he didn’t look older at the time.

    I remember before I saw the movie I read some review that stated that it seemed like every action scene was done by a different director and that stuck with me when I saw it, and it does. Every action scene has it’s own weird style and doesn’t gel and makes the action scenes seem like Street Fighter scenes. Also most the action scenes are just Blank Vs. Blank.

    • Jarv says :

      What action scenes? I’m not kidding here, I can’t remember them.

      • koutchboom says :

        Well there is Wolverine Vs. Saber tooth in the snow which is probably the best one and it’s at the beginning. Storm Vs. Toad which I don’t think was that long or really much? Wolverine Vs. Mystique in some sewer I think, that’s the one that literally looks right out of Street Fighter 2 the game. And I guess the fight on the Statue of Liberty.

      • Just Pillow Talk says :

        Wolvie vs Sabertooth is crap in the snow. He just stands there and gets whalloped twice. Storm vs Toad involved Toad throwing her around a bit and then Toad getting zapped by lightening. “What happens to a Toad when lightening strikes it. The same thing has everything else.”

        Terrible.

        Eh, I suppose Mystique vs. Wolverine was the best, which isn’t saying much.

      • Jarv says :

        Got to agree with Pillows here. Neither of those are action scenes.

        Man, the X-men films blow.

      • koutchboom says :

        Well they are fight scenes?

      • Jarv says :

        Hardly, and both over in less time than Knowles spends “in” his mrs.

      • koutchboom says :

        Well people punch and fight in those scenes so I don’t know what else you’d call them.

      • Jarv says :

        The storm one in particular is the worst example of action in the movie. She turns up, he throws her down a lift shaft. He perches there to wait patiently, she floats up and then splatters him with lightening. I’m damned if I know what it is, but it isn’t action.

      • koutchboom says :

        Eh there is a good minute of punching:

      • koutchboom says :

        This scene is at least 3 minutes long:

        that’s a good 3 minutes longer than Harry…eh jesus why did you even bring up that image. You really are a sick demented fuck.

      • Just Pillow Talk says :

        They are pretty awful Koutch. When I revisit Thor, I’ll have to see if I feel the same way, but those action scenes were eons better than X-men.

        I did start watching X-men 2 and it’s loads better than the first. The action scenes are much better, though still not the same as anything in say Daredevil (yup, it’s true) or Thor. Probably even Captain America.

      • koutchboom says :

        Thor only has maybe 4 action scenes. The ice people, the military people and Loki on the rainbow bridge. I guess the fight with the giant robot. I mean I’m not defending the action scenes in X-Men I’m just saying it has about 9 minutes worth.

      • Jarv says :

        ’m just saying it has about 9 minutes worth.

        Read that through: 9 minutes of action in a 2 and a half hour movie. A 2.5 hour movie about superhero types.

        It’s alright though, far more important to get across that it’s really, really, really hard to be “different” on a genetic level.

      • Droid says :

        The first X-Men is only about 100 minutes I think.

      • Jarv says :

        X2 is a vastly better film, but totally overrated.

      • Just Pillow Talk says :

        Yeah, X-men is just over 100 minutes, yet it felt much longer watching it this time around. Too much time passes by without any action.

        A comic book movie has to have the right amount of balance of action and story. This one lacked action.

      • Droid says :

        Wow. It had a decent budget. $75 million. I thought it was going to be about $30 million or something. To excuse the lack of action. Certainly could’ve afforded an action set piece or two for that cash.

      • koutchboom says :

        Well you got the train scene, the statue of liberty scene, the blobby guy scene, the holocaust scene, the super plane, the Wolverine/Sabertooth fight and then those two action pieces I posted you tube videos of. I think that’s the problem with the movie it just sort of goes from scene to scene to scene with no real congruence or real flow.

      • Jarv says :

        No, the problem with it is that it’s self indulgent and boring as fuck.

        The lack of action is because Singer directs lousy action, and it wasn’t important to him. Take, for example, the confrontation in the station. Should have been a bad ass action throwdown, but instead nothing really happens, cyclops wrecks the roof and then the bad guys leave by the front door.

        The whole film is full of stuff like that.

        X-men 1 is a crap film, and what the fuck did they spend that money on?

      • Droid says :

        Yeah, but you look at the second one. Storywise it’s no better, but you’ve got the opening scene in the white house, the attack on the school, the jet dodging missiles and getting shot down, and the whole finale. The action scenes are better, therefore the movie is better.

      • Jarv says :

        The opening scene in the White House earns that film a lot of good will that it just squanders with Nightcrawler and Mystique talking about how hard it is to be gay a mutant and how they regret cutting themselves.

        These are actually not very good at all.

        X2- 2 Changs
        Wolverine- 2 Changs
        X3- 1 Chang
        X-Men 1 Chang.

      • Jarv says :

        X3 cost 210 million?

        Jesus suffering fuck. What a waste.

        Although furry Kelsey Grammar was funny.

      • Droid says :

        I saw a bit of it on tv the other week. A big teddy bear Kelsey Grammar in a suit talking politics. I had to chuckle.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        Im still in the mindset that X2 is the ‘best’ at 2.5 stars and X3 is the worst. Wolverine was just totally bland to me, don’t get the interest there. For all the talk of gay subtext, it had just become text by X3, which is easily the queeniest of the series.

        Maybe the second Wolverine movie will be better.

      • Droid says :

        It’s James Mangold. I think it will be.

      • koutchboom says :

        I hope it’s at least better than Knight and Day. Talk about a gay subtext movie.

      • Droid says :

        Eh? What’s the gay subtext in K&D? I liked that movie.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        he’s having you on and probably talking about Diaz’s face or something.

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah I’m joking about K&D I just know that it’s popular among the gay community. I didn’t really like the movie, I watched it at a bad time though, like Monday evening so the movie felt like it was 4 hours long.

      • Droid says :

        It’s a cheerfully silly movie. I enjoyed it.

        Dare I ask, how do you know it’s popular with the gay community?

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        I was about to ask that…is it because droid and I like it?

      • koutchboom says :

        I hang out here a bunch, and Knight and Day seems to be popular around here.

      • Jarv says :

        Who is Night and Day gay, by the way. Granted, it’s a piece of disposable fluff, but I didn’t particularly see it as gay.

        Watched a bit of The Change Up (shit), and Bad Teacher the other night. The reason I mention this in context here is that the change up was definitely a bit gay and Diaz was shit in Bad Teacher.

      • koutchboom says :

        See Peter Sarsgaard (a known gay) is the evil head of some secret CIA type organization that represents gay people as a whole. Tom Cruise is a gay man pretending to be something he isn’t by pretending to be straight running away from them, I mean he chooses Cameron Diaz (NOW Cameron Diaz not The Mask Cameron Diaz) to prove to the world that he’s not gay. And they go on a big elaborate chase, notice he knows all the great vacation spots to visit like a typical gay man, also he can change a women’s clothes whose passed out without Franking her. It’s all there you just gotta look for the subtext, it’s basically a Tom Cruise bio film with him running away from his gay fate.

      • Jarv says :

        also he can change a women’s clothes whose passed out without Franking her

        Funny. You are talking about haggard Diaz, though.

      • Jarv says :

        Also, isn’t she a mechanic?

      • koutchboom says :

        In the movie? IDK she was dating some fireman….which also remember that touching scene where Tom shoots him and gently lays him down kisses him on the forehead and tells him everything is going to be ok? So again a tender love moment between Tom and a fireman, it’s all very gay subtexty.

      • Jarv says :

        Sorry Koutch, I should have said that she “is” a mechanic.

      • Droid says :

        What’s franking?

      • koutchboom says :

        You probably don’t want to know. They’ve shown it in some French misery TP movies I’m guessing if you are really interested.

      • Jarv says :

        I’m presuming he means molesting her while she’s asleep like Frank.

      • Droid says :

        Other than sitting at home all day in your underwear watching bad movies and eating sandwiches while collecting unemployment benefits.

      • Droid says :

        Well Frankie is close to the Welsh border, where women traditionally lose their virginity when a man knocks her unconscious and molestation her. Its a bit harsh to catch that franking though.

      • Droid says :

        Bah? Molestation her? Stupid predictive text.

      • koutchboom says :

        Well it does make your joke sound like you are speaking like a Welshmen.

      • Jarv says :

        Usually a close relative, before they lose interest and start on the local livestock.

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah it’s sort of funny how I’ve never really wanted to see these films past the first 1 and I was pretty big into X-Men. I mean I was very very excited to see X1 in theaters and saw it opening day. Probably saw X2 opening week. Caught X3 right before it left theaters. Saw the “early” version of Wolverine just cause. And have yet to watch X-First Class, mainly because I’m just not that interested.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        despite the fact he was played by Alan Cummings, I dont recall there being as much ‘gay talk’ as you mention regarding Nightcrawler. I think it was the film’s terribly botched way of trying to vaguely reference his spirtuality, which was a large part of the character in the comics. In Hollywood, it’s still more taboo to portray a positive example of a person of faith than it is to just make them a gay metaphor.

      • koutchboom says :

        I never saw the films as gay metaphor’s, I didn’t know Bryan Singer was gay at the time, so I don’t know if that would’ve changed my perception of them. I get what you are talking about, but I just don’t think the X-Men films are smart enough to really have any meaningful subtext. Also I was already engrossed with the mutant idea from the comics that I took it all at face value. I did know that Ian was gay though.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        even with Angel tearing off his wings so daddy wouldnt see?

      • koutchboom says :

        Eh I never went into an X-Men movie thinking…OK I GOTTA BE LOOKING FOR THE DEEPER SUBTEXT of it all. I guess it is what you make of it, I just think the movies are too stupid to be beyond just basic acceptance of different people not necessarily gay people. Knowing now that Synger is gay, yeah they may have been an overall evil plan, but he failed in his execution mainly because no one takes X-Men that seriously.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        No I get that K. Im saying that the Ratner one–not singer–tried to make it out in the open and obvious. Thats where it falls apart for me. They can’t just be mutants at that point, they gotta be a parade.

      • Jarv says :

        The Ratner one placed it front and centre, whereas Singer hid it in the sidelines a bit. But not very subtly.

        It, actually, isn’t gay. It’s about how hard it is to be different- C.F. Stalkerman Returns which is one big daddy issues/ world doesn’t accept me film.

      • koutchboom says :

        I gotta watch 3 again, remember Brett fucking hates fags so who knows? But also again…I don’t think Brett cares/tries to make deeper meanings to his films. But I do see what you are saying with the parade aspect and it taking place in San Francisco and all.

      • Jarv says :

        He tries to cut his wings off so that daddy will love him more. Subtle it is not.

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah knowing what I know now I may see it differently. But I’ve always bought into the idea of the comics so I always just take that shit at face value. Also I got no problem with gay people so I don’t always jump right to OHHHH this is a gay analogy thing.

      • Jarv says :

        Couldn’t care less about gay people or people in general. What I do care about is seeing action in a funny book movie and not being bored to tears by all the ooooh it’s so hard to be different, the world just doesn’t understand stuff, or pontificated at.

        9 minutes of action in a 100 minute film. That’s awful.

      • Droid says :

        I think there was a fair bit of talk about how alienated he was.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        the talk involves him being in solitude and the markings on his body being related to sins, so yes, it comes off that way, when they are trying to allude to something more spiritually connected to the character. It failed horribly. Im not saying that this makes it any better–it makes it more inept–Im just saying that I dont think the gay aspect was really trussed up in a feather boa til the third one.

      • Jarv says :

        If that’s the case, and they were aiming for spirituality and accidentally made it seem like the subtext thing, then that’s even worse.

      • Jarv says :

        There’s a whole scene with him and mystique that just wallows in self pity.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        They aren’t bound to ever get this right. I think they had a shot with First Class, but they buggered it by feeling this deep need to connect it all together with what had come before.

      • Droid says :

        The first 30-40 minutes of that was pretty good thanks to Fass. After that it’s the worst of the bunch.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        Transformers 3 had more gay subtext than KND. First, the title. Dark of the Moon.
        Moon, which is a slang synonym for ass, so combined with ‘Dark’ it must mean the sphincter. And we know who loves plowing sphincters! Giant gay robots! And all of that rolling around prime and megatron did while ‘fighting’ Ha! gay as hell. They were dry humping on screen. Bay – rhymes with gay, was having a blast showing gay robot sex and Kman ate that shit up! Ha!

        I saw KND on cable, and i neither liked it or actively disliked it. It was a bland cable movie that wasted some time. I would have been pissed if i paid for it though. Still, Kman is pulling your leg. If he can ignore the in your face gay subtext in Xmen from the mutants lining up to be ‘free’ of their affliction, which mirrored news reports of the time the movie came out about gays getting treatment to end their gayness, to the way magneto behaved with mystique and pyro, but is able to see/manufacture gay subtext in KND, well he is pulling you leg.

  3. Droid says :

    I always found the scene where Prof X uses the machine to find Rogue incredibly stupid. First of all, it’s the first place any sensible person would look, and second of all, I hated the smug cunt delivery of the line “She’s at the train station.”

    Anyway, I knew absolutely nothing about what an X-Man was when I saw it and I enjoyed it enough. Despite what you say about Jackmans build, I think he’s a terrific Wolverine. I’d rather see him as the character than some Danny Devito motherfucker. There were a lot of characters with nothing to do in this. But the worst is Storm. She gets nothing to do, and then some idiotic payoff line towards the end when she fights Toad.

    I also liked the way the senator or whoever he was died. An effective scene that one, with his escape.

    To say that there had been successful funny book adaptations previously is quite the joke.

    Huh? Supes. Batman. Hell, even The Phantom was decent fun. More fun than X-Men anyway.

    • koutchboom says :

      Yeah I don’t get the Wolverine/Hughy complaint and I read comics, I thought he nailed it. You may as well complained that they weren’t wearing bright yellow spandex outfits.

    • koutchboom says :

      Don’t forget Spawn and The Shawdow.

      • koutchboom says :

        Also Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles handled the team aspect magnificently.

      • koutchboom says :

        I guess you could say no MARVEL comic had been turned into a successful movie yet.

      • Droid says :

        Blade is awesome.

      • Droid says :

        TMNT is an awesome movie. Love it.

        “Wise man say, forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza!”

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah thinking about it now, that movie handled the team aspect of those four really well. I mean I get that the X-Men are a LIIIITTTTLLLEEEE more complicated than the Turtles, but the Turtles was all partying and pizza they had to fucking put up with Ralph.

        I’m willing to bet at least Turtles 1-2 and the animated movie are better comic book movies than probably all other comic films except for the Batman’s and some Superman’s. I need to see Turtles 3 again, I remember not liking it for some reason.

      • Droid says :

        Turtles 1 is a genuinely good film. “Cricket? You’ve gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket!”

        Turtles 2 was crap on a stick. Never saw Turtles 3. That was time travel or something wasn’t it?

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah 3 was time travel. Come on Turtles 2 isn’t that bad, a little cheesy maybe but it’s still fun as fuck. You ever see the animated movie? That has one of the best fight scenes in some time.

      • koutchboom says :

        Also Turtles had an awesome fucking poster. Imagine Turtles posters now…well the animated one withstanding. It’s would’ve just been these profile pictures of them not this bad ass thing:

      • koutchboom says :

        Actually the TMNT poster isn’t that bad but it’s nothing classic, pretty standard:

      • koutchboom says :

        If you refuse to watch the animated film at least check this out, now you miss a lot of the emotional baggage brought to this scene and it isn’t the best quality but you get the idea:

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        that’s a very good scene and all in all, a quite good movie.

        It didnt just give me flashbacks to Turtles, but to a great late 90’s animated toon called ‘Gargoyles’ which had a similar feel to Turtles, but which I honestly liked better.

      • koutchboom says :

        Keith David like a mother fucker! If I had known about the greatness of Keith back then I probably would’ve liked it more. For some reason I always thought the animation was cheap on that show. I’ve got one of the toys somewhere. TMNT reminded me of Turtles perfectly, it probably makes for a better sequel to the original movie than the actual live action sequel.

      • koutchboom says :

        Bahahahahaha:

      • koutchboom says :

        I haven’t seen Dylan Dog but everyone hates it, maybe that director should try to make a CGI Gargoyles movie instead of keeping with live action.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        I like the turtles, but can’t really say the live-action ones were very good. They had nostalgia value, but I saw the first two about a year or so ago, and they were just dumb. The sequel atrociously so, the original just quite ‘meh’ despite having some quotable lines.

        The animated movie was a different story in that it captured the team dynamic better as well as the spirit of the comic books. Patrick Stewart was in that too. Definitely an underrated movie.

      • Droid says :

        Nah, the original live action flick still holds up. Lots of fun.

      • koutchboom says :

        I need to go back and watch the original, I saw the sequel not too long ago also I need to watch Warriors of Virtue again that was a fun movie as well.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        Warriors of Virtue? I remember that being terrible and nearly Orang of Doom worthy. That’s the kid in the land of the fighting kangaroos one right, with Angus McFayden as the bad guy?

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        it’s almost there. I liked the costumes, liked the banter between the turtles and Elias Koteas, but it really falls down on having a good villain. The Shredder and his gang, in the film, aren’t very interesting as bad guys.

      • Droid says :

        I thought Shredder was an imposing villain. All the film required was someone to look mean and beat up a few people. And the film handled the origin and Splinters history with Shredder really quickly and efficiently. It’s not afraid to slow down and develop the characters as well, like the section where they’re hiding out at the farmhouse. And Splinter makes a funny! What else do you need?

        Yeah, the first Turtles flick is quality.

      • Droid says :

        Didn’t they announce a live action reboot recently?

      • koutchboom says :

        There have been a resurgance in the comic recently with one of the original guys coming back to write it. The creators of the turtles story is an interesting one, because they literally published it out of their basement and then got real rich real fast, but then got all pissy about their creation being taken out of their control…..yet they didn’t mind the money. I think they had a huge falling out over everything.

      • Droid says :

        It was two guys named Kevin Eastman and… someone else… Peter Laird? Something like that. Lets see how good or bad my memory is!

      • koutchboom says :

        SPOT ON!

      • Droid says :

        Good to see my booze-addled brain still holds the important information.

      • koutchboom says :

        Heheh Eastman is married to Julie Strain.

      • Droid says :

        Who’s that?

      • koutchboom says :

        Damn I missed this.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_Forever

        They brought back the Turtles cartoon in 2007, with a normal Turtles that was really good and some Turtles in the Future that wasn’t so good. And I think the normal Turtles ended so I stopped caring I guess there was build up to that, I may check it out.

      • koutchboom says :

        Oh damn I guess that new Turtles series ran from 2003 till that movie.

        Julie Strain is some semi soft porn actress.

      • koutchboom says :

        Ah they are divorced now of course.

      • koutchboom says :

        Well this is a pretty awesome character profile poster for the TMNT movie:

      • koutchboom says :

        WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        2012 animated series

        Leonardo again leads the team in Nickelodeon’s upcoming animated series, voiced by actor Jason Biggs.[4]

        Fucking Biggs as Leo????? Maybe Donatello but the fucking leader? No way.

      • koutchboom says :

        Ohhh ok this is why I got confused when I thought back in 2007 there had been a new TMNT show and a separate show with them in the future. Them in the future is actually just a season of the show called Fast Forward. And the episodes I thought where new were just repeats. It makes sense since the stuff in the future relates back to the past. So the turtles has 2 awesome series of cartoons that lasted over 150 episodes.

      • Jarv says :

        I did not like New Turtles film.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        it depends on your perspective. When I first saw the Turtles it was well before the toys, when they aired the original cartoon miniseries on primetime television, and I loved it for the overall weirdness–there was Shredder, but also that giant mutant brain, Krang, and the mousers, and it was this comic universe seemingly based off really bad martial arts movies and really bad 50’s sci-fi movies.

        So imagine that’s your perspective, and as a kid you go in hoping it’s some sort of Buckaroo Banzai thing thats filled with the oddness you saw in the cartoon.

        I think whats not usually remembered with the turtles is that in comic form they were kind of subversive, then they were slightly watered down for the toon, and by the movie they had been rendered mundane. I still remember thinking ‘we traded up alien brain from dimension x for street gang who steals walkmans?

      • koutchboom says :

        I think it follows the movie Turtles more than the cartoon’s sure, but I don’t think there was a huge difference in the three. I read the comic growing up. I get where it’s darker than the cartoon but I also realized that it’s a cartoon. I think the CGI movie hit a good middle point of the three ideas comic/cartoon/live action film.

      • Droid says :

        I read the comic (one of the very few comics I read), watched the tv show (on every afternoon after school at 4:30!) and saw the film. I was 10 or 11 or so. I actually didn’t expect them to have Krang and the scifi elements in the film. Because what you would get is a film like the sequel, with Beebop and Rocksteady type characters. I actually preferred the film because it was based in a plausible reality. It had the grit and grime of the streets and sewer. And the villains were wayward kids about my age or a little older.

      • koutchboom says :

        Hrmm reading about it, it’s Kevin Eastman whose writing TMNT comics again, he was the original creator but it says that the other guy Peter Laird bought out his rights to the turtles in 2008? Also that it was Eastman that was bored with the whole thing….I guess he needed the money in the end.

      • Droid says :

        The Shadow wasn’t a funny book I’m pretty sure. It was a radio serial. First at least.

      • koutchboom says :

        Close enough. I’ve sat through Conti’s sermon enough times to know the difference.

  4. Just Pillow Talk says :

    Superman sucks, sorry. It’s a boring movie. I will never understand the love for Donner’s Superman.

    I do not like Batman either, since I found Keaton laughable as Batman (can’t imagine him swatting a fly) and I hate Jack as the Joker. I just can’t take him seriously.

  5. Col. Tigh-Fighter says :

    I really enojyed the first two X Men films. Thought the opening concentration camp scene was very memorable, then straight into that public debate stuff. All very good and topical.

    Third one was absolute shite, and Brett Ratner should be shot for it.

    • Jarv says :

      Third one was no worse than the first one.

      i.e. Shite.

      Singer makes therapy sessions and disguises them as funny book movies.

      • Col. Tigh-Fighter says :

        God lord, Jarv. That’s wrong even by your standards lol The first two were pretty tight films, with some good actors and an actual story. Not perfect, but perhaps the first really good comic book films we’d seen since Burtons Batmans.

        I never bought the actual mutations they had. They were just stupid. But the way the played them out was fun,

        The third was the most hackneyed and souless thing I had seen. It was on TV las night, and I caught the end. WTF was Vinnie Jones doing in there?

      • koutchboom says :

        I love Vinnie Jones in the third X-Men movie. I liked the third one the best, since they don’t really give a shit which is pretty true with the first 2 but the first two tried to take themselves seriously, X-3 was just a dumb blast.

      • Jarv says :

        I’m really sorry, but if I’m watching a funny book movie, then I don’t want to be sitting through hour upon hour of feck all happen while Bryan Singer explains how hard it is to be gay. Then to carry it on in Stalkerman returns was unforgivable.

        The third, while shit, is at least over quickly.

      • Jarv says :

        Here’s controversy: Having just seen it, Skippy is right: Wolverine is the best and most enjoyable one.

        Even if it is the stupidest.

      • Droid says :

        Third one isn’t that bad. None of these films are terrible. Just none of them are any good. I had the most fun with Wolverine. That’s just a dumbhouse 80’s action movie.

      • Just Pillow Talk says :

        The first one shortchanged the entire cast except for Jackman and Rogue. The rest were just sort of there.

        That’s not how you do a “team” comic book movie. What the hell was the point of Cyclops?

      • Just Pillow Talk says :

        I seem to remember Wolverine having the most action.

        I think they botched Sabertooth up in that one though…dude is supposed to be bigger, stronger, faster than Wolverine. Not in that movie.

    • Just Pillow Talk says :

      The concentration camp scene was the best scene of the entire first movie. Seriously.

      X2 is much better.

  6. Toadkillerdog says :

    Good review Piddoes. I like All of the Xmen movies to varying degrees with the exception of Wolverine.
    I recall really liking Xmen when it first came out, I thought it was a good although not spectacular take on the merry mutants. It was not an easy translation and I thought singer did a credible job in the first flick. It started out very strong with magneto in the concentration camp, but they kinda sorta side stepped that arc afterwards. Jackman was outstanding as wolverine, and he completely won me over. I could care less that he was not a ‘runt’ . That was a star making performance that you do not see very often literally the birth of a movie star. Paquin was miscast as rogue. She has zero sex appeal – then or now, and while she did not suck in the role, it was poorly fleshed out for the amount of screen time she received. still she had the academy award under her belt so i guess she was considered the featured performer. Stewart was great albeit too reserved. McKellen was decent, but Magneto should have had more vitality.
    I had no idea of Singer’s preference at the time, but i did see too much uh, sensitivity among the male characters .

    The wolverine/jean grey thing was stupid in the comics and stupid on screen. made no sense when claremont tried to create a love triangle in the book, and made no sense on screen.

    TMNT – it was entertaining, far more so than it had a right to be.

    • Just Pillow Talk says :

      I totally concede that I’m nitpicking with the Wovlerine thing. What bothered me too….isn’t Wolverine supposed to be very fast? Like shouldn’t Mystique not be able to kick his ass?

      Rogue was just not an interesting character to spend so much time on.

      • koutchboom says :

        What’s funny about the whole Rouge story and the way they handled it, it’s that it’s a complete rip off of Jubilee’s story from the cartoon. I always thought Rouge should be older.

      • Droid says :

        Rogue was supposed to be the audience surrogate. The entry point into this weird world of mutants. It’s a familiar tool used in these types of films. The studio demanded Del Toro create a character for Hell Boy. Avatar did it. To name two of hundreds. It’s the outsider having everything explained to him/her so the audience receives all the information.

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah it would’ve helped if our human entry point didn’t look weirder than the mutants.

      • Just Pillow Talk says :

        Yeah, I think Rogue is an actual woman in the comics, not some little girl.

        And they could have just as well used Wolverine as that “entry point”.

      • Droid says :

        The difference is Wolverine’s already a mutant. What they wanted to show is the first “reveal” of the mutant. How it causes alienation to those closest to them. Normal one day, gay a freak the next. It’s all part of the homo subtext.

      • koutchboom says :

        What’s funny is that as a whole X-men isn’t some hugely successful movie financially speaking. The highest grossing one 3 only made Worldwide: $459,359,555, off of a 210 million budget. Thor made Worldwide: $448,512,824 off of a 150 million budget, granted Thor had some 3D boosting it’s sales.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        Rogue was just mishandled in the movie from casting to writing, Kman might be correct about jubilee, I had stopped reading the comic before she arrived so I do not know, but it seems to me they decided to skew rogues age younger in the movie to have greater appeal to younger audience.

        Rogues age is up in the air, when she debuted in the awesome Avengers annual I think it was -10, she was a teen, but claremont gradually aged her

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        Kman, you gotta adjust the dollars to account for inflation

      • koutchboom says :

        Eh they all came out in this last decade, so it’s not like X1 came out in 1970 and has a huge difference. I think if you account for inflation X3 is still the clear winner, you more have to account for ticket prices.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        I just read Droids post, that makes more sense to me that she was used in that manner as opposed to her being closer to comic book age. Then again, her age was all over the place in the comic. Mystique was actually her ‘mother’ or maternal figure for a while. Kman you ever read Avengers annual 10 ? Just an awesome book.

      • koutchboom says :

        No, I mainly just stuck to the basic X-Men title. I think I stopped with the Cyclops/Jean Grey wedding special.

      • koutchboom says :

        What’s weird now that I got back into comics I got into X-Men legacy for a while and in that series the fucking Danger Room is an actual character/person.

    • koutchboom says :

      Yeah I will say X-Men made Hughy a star and Thor made Hemmy a star….Superman did not make Routh a star. The moral of the story…to become famous off of a silly comic book character be Australian with an H name.

  7. Droid says :

    Speaking of gay Hollywood movies, I’m off to collect my Fast and Furious box set, which features two macho men fluttering their eyes at each other in the first film, and then the gayest Hollywood film since Top Gun (until Never Back Down) in the second one. Huzzah for gay action movies!

  8. Toadkillerdog says :

    Transformers 3 had more gay subtext than KND. First, the title. Dark of the Moon.
    Moon, which is a slang synonym for ass, so combined with ‘Dark’ it must mean the sphincter. And we know who loves plowing sphincters! Giant gay robots! And all of that rolling around prime and megatron did while ‘fighting’ Ha! gay as hell. They were dry humping on screen. Bay – rhymes with gay, was having a blast showing gay robot sex and Kman ate that shit up! Ha!

    I saw KND on cable, and i neither liked it or actively disliked it. It was a bland cable movie that wasted some time. I would have been pissed if i paid for it though. Still, Kman is pulling your leg. If he can ignore the in your face gay subtext in Xmen from the mutants lining up to be ‘free’ of their affliction, which mirrored news reports of the time the movie came out about gays getting treatment to end their gayness, to the way magneto behaved with mystique and pyro, but is able to see/manufacture gay subtext in KND, well he is pulling you leg.

    bah, posted in wrong place start newthread

  9. Continentalop says :

    Nice review Pillows.

    Not a fan of any of the X-Men movie. While I don’t mind the gay subtext in the X-Men movies (the X-Men were always a metaphor for those feeling ostracized or oppressed), I never liked how obvious it is or how it can only be read as about gay people. The X-Men only represent sexual preference, not race, age, gender, religion, etc. It gets annoying after awhile.

    Another problem I had with the X-Men, besides the story and plot, was that all the good mutants were good looking and human looking, and the evil mutants were the freaky looking ones. For a movie about how bad discrimination is stereotypes and condemns people who don’t look like us. It is even worse when you think about how the New X-Men usually looked weirder and scarier than the people they fought.

  10. Continentalop says :

    Toad, Avengers Annual 10 – that was when Ms. Marvel had her powers stolen right?

    Man, Ms. Marvel really got run through the ringer in the Avengers. She was “raped” and impregnated by Marcus before that.

    And yeah, Rogue seems more like Kitty Pryde than she does Rogue.

    • Toadkillerdog says :

      Ya Conti,it was the Ms Marvel story and the Rogue debut and it also showcased Iron Man. It was a tremendous book. One of the best stand alone books in all of the avengers history.

      I thought claremont did his usual whingeing and chest beating over Ms Marvel, and was really stretching a point to make it appear the avengers were culpable in her ‘rape’ but on the other hand he did show another side to the story of marcus. but my feeling is that he was more pissed that another writer took ‘his’ character or one that he felt close to, and sent her away, so he was getting revenge on that writer and whingeing at the same time. It was a bit soap opera, but the action in the book far surpasses his bitchiness

      • Continentalop says :

        I actually think that Clairmont had a good point with what happened to Carol Danvers, but he really couldn’t talk – he had her assailant and someone who basically “murdered” the Danvers persona, Rogue, join the X-Men and never be punished for her actions.

        It’s like letting Sandusky join the FBI or police, IMO.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        he did have a point, but in typical claremont fashion he bludgeoned it to death. Claremont was renowned for ‘getting’ women – at least how the are written, so he thought he was the expert on all things female or issues female

  11. Continentalop says :

    I actually really hate this movie, but I’m biting my tongue because if I really get going I won’t stop.

    • koutchboom says :

      Let it flow man. I think we are all in agreement about this one.

      • Continentalop says :

        I don’t want to waste my day bitching about something that is unworthy of so much attention.

        BUT I will add this movie also has one of the dumbest plots ever – what fucking bigot (and Magneto is a bigot) comes up with a device that turns you into the same race as him? It means you are no longer special and better than your enemy – that is something a crazy Gandhi like guy would do, not a terrorist asshole like Magneto.

      • Jarv says :

        Heh.

        That always bugged me as well

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah I always thought that. I was like….well what if he turns them into something crazy that can end him very easily?

      • Continentalop says :

        That would have been a better ending. Magneto activates his device and one of the humans is turned into an incredibly powerful mutant called Omega and turns Magneto into a baby.

        Toad will get what I am talking about.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        Hmm, ok see magneto never considered himself a terrorist -what terrorist does?
        he considered himself a freedom fighter.

        Yes, it is a comic book solution to turn your enemies into your own kind, and thus you end discrimination. Of course that will not work, because discrimination occurs within like groups as well. It could be based upon powers, or looks or who was an original homo sapiens human vs a changed one and on and on and on.
        I do not fault the reason why he chose to do that as opposed to the logic of the decision.

      • koutchboom says :

        Yeah it’s Apocalypse that wants to end all of the human race not Magneto, he just wants to be their King.

      • Continentalop says :

        Yes, it is a comic book solution for a movie that wasn’t nearly comic book enough to pull it off. X-Men was way too serious and somber to have something that patently silly as the main plot.

        And like I said, it didn’t really fit Magneto’s character. He isn’t worried about ending mutant discrimination as he is about ensuring mutant superiority. He might not want to wipe everyone out like Apocalypse does, but he does want to make sure that mutants are the top dogs – he believes they are the next step in human evolution after all.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        Conti, that is an excellent point that I certainly can not refute. Mags wanted domination not and end to discrimination – at least not as far as the movie portrays him.

        Still, his solution, which i once again agree with you, was too comic booky for this flick, would have given him that very end.

        What would it matter if he reigns over born mutants or transmuted mutants? He would still reign over all mutants – unless he inadvertently created a more powerful mutant that would supplant him.

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        msot of this boils down to one of the really big problems with this series; the writing. They could never decide on one specific view of Magneto, and so he’s constantly doing things that seemingly violate his character.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        in that respect bunny, they stayed truthful to the comic, because mags was all over the place. either world domination or end discrimination to back to world domination to being turned into a baby then a robot then exiled then back again then taking over xmen, then destroying them and on and on

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        that’s true Toad, but that, to be fair, was over decades of comics and writers and artists. The films should have had the good sense to deal with one iteration at a time, as it is fair to say that mostly magneto did not change midstream of a story arc unless it was clearly telegraphed–moving from good to evil, evil to good, whatever. In the films they are trying to represent all these facets of him, but they forgot that those facets rarely existed together, just in the overall cannon of the XMen.

      • Continentalop says :

        I think it was our buddy Clairmont that really made Magneto so inconsistent, toad. Before him and Byrne brought him back, Magneto was pretty much an all-out bad guy, Sure, he justified his actions, but he was without a doubt a villain. Clairmont is the one that made him nobler and seemed to make him much more in the grey zone.

        I mean, didn’t he once sink a Russian sub and kill all hands on deck before Clairmont got to him?

      • Continentalop says :

        And yeah Bunnyman, the writing for the X-Men was pretty bad throughout. I mean, I still cringe at Whedon’s contribution.

        “You know what lightning does to a frog?” Fuck that.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        Ya bunny and Conti, both are true. he was inconsistent in the movie and claremont just had to ‘justify’ his reasoning.
        I get why claremont did that, the 70’s and 80’s were big on showing justified reasons for evil, and it does give the character more layers than just being evil, but still, if everyone has a reason for being evil, then all lwe really need a big ol group hug. sometimes people are evil because they want to be that way because it makes them happy and gives them what the most desire, and it had nothing to do with whether you got a lolipop on your second birthday

      • koutchboom says :

        The problem with comics like the X-Men especially is that you get WAAAAAYYYYY to many fucking series with them in it going on at once, so way too many people working on these characters. Even newer characters like my favorite Deadpool now, isn’t exactly what he started off as because of all the regime shifts. I think once you have a character in multiple stories at once is when they start to lose focus on what the character was suppose to be. Like with Deadpool when he first came about he really only had one comic so he stayed pretty true, this recent resurgence has made him more all over the place. Just like now Hulk and Bruce Banner are two different people and there are like 3-4 Hulks and he’s got two sons.

      • koutchboom says :

        That’s probably why older comics the characters stayed more true to form since there was only at most two comics they could really be in. Their comic or Avengers with the occasional cross over. Now a days X-Men are in like 15 different comics at once. Wolverine is in 20, Batman is a Franchise now throughout the world and has a son who is Robin (well that actually makes sense).

      • Echo the Bunnyman says :

        yea, the Hulk has had more face lifts than Mickey Rourke. There was a bit in the 90s where he was Hulk all the time and given to making Ahnuld style quips.

      • koutchboom says :

        I think with the whole World War Hulk saga, they got a better grasp on him and that’s when they really fleshed out the character of THE HULK, as apposed to it just being some mean green machine. I really dug the Saakar saga, but from what i gather it’s pretty much just a knock off of the whole WW Hulk Saga. I wouldn’t mind picking those all up. The gist is Ironman and Captain America I think get fucking tired of the hulk fucking everything up so and I may have this order wrong. Either he fucks them all up and then they shoot him off to space where he becomes king of the planet Saakar, and then comes back. That are he fucks them all up when he comes back. But I think only recently have they become two separate people. IDK how when it gets this fucking jumbled how anyone keeps it all straight.

      • Toadkillerdog says :

        That is a great point Kman, because every writer wants to leave an impression on the character and unless there is strong editorial control, if you have multiple titles with multiple writers doing the same character something is bound to change. Even when switching writers on the same book you will get change, but it tends to be gradual unless the book stinks and a radical change is called for. In the 70’s very few marvel characters had multiple books, only spiderman comes to mind. Peter parker and amazing sm did have a different vibe, but not radically

      • Droid says :

        To be honest I never knew there were multiple versions of comic books for one character until about 5 years ago. I thought spiderman was just the amazing spiderman for example.

      • Jarv says :

        I imagine it’s a mare following it.

      • koutchboom says :

        Well it’s not like there are 20 different Batmans. DC keeps it pretty linear, they are all way into continuity than Marvel. But really outside of the idea of the basic Marvel Universe and the Marvel ULTIMATE universe most characters only have one version, just because of the ULTIMATE Universe now pretty much every Marvel character has two versions, but Ultimate tends to keep within it’s self, it’s only really gotten huge in the last few years, like I think all in all there are probably only around 100 Ultimate comics all together with 50 of them coming from the last year or so, I could be wrong though.

        But outside of basic Marvel and Ultimate Marvel almost all the other Marvel characters are the same person. Spiderman is really the only different one I can think of. We are talking just more in that you’ve got X-Men, X-Men Legacy, Uncanny X-Men these are all three different comic books about the same group of characters all happening roughly around the same time period and all come out every month. More THAT aspect of different version, more so then complete different version’s. Does that make sense?

        Lemme explain with Deadpool since I read all his shit. He’s died down but he was super hot right now from like 2007-2010 and he had Deadpool, Merc With a Mouth, Deadpool Team-up, Deadpool Corps, Suicide Kings, Deadpool Max, Uncanny X-Force and numerous appearances in other people’s comics….and that is all the same version of the same character. There was also Zombie Deadpool, now that is a different version of Deadpool….that eventually become Headpool since he lost his body.

        Because of the whole multiverse idea (which was brought up in Deadpool Corpes where Deadpool teams up with different versions of himself to fight Aliens) you get a lot more of that, but the multiverse characters outside of the Ultimate’s (which I don’t think even factors into the Multivese of the Marvel Multiverse system) only show up in singular stand alone issues.

      • koutchboom says :

        Hehe and I lied, right now there are like 20 different Batmans, but there is still only 1 BATMAN, Bruce Wayne and he’s still Batman it’s not like he died and someone else became Batman. When he died and turned through time, he came back and let the world know that Bruce Wayne was Batman and that he would be turning Batman into a Franchise across the world, and has turned most the Robin’s into Batman and some lesser known characters into Batman’s. THAT idea is actually interesting. The problem with DC is that they do keep there shit all pretty tight so it is like you have to read EVERY single one of there comics to know what’s really going on. And there are like 4 Batman stories going on right now, added to the Robin and Red Robin and Night Wing stories.

      • Jarv says :

        Batman= McDonald’s?

      • koutchboom says :

        No more selective than that. Like one per major city, I don’t know how many of them there are I’m not reading Batman Incorporated.

      • Continentalop says :

        Back in the 70s and 80s you also had more editorial oversight. Shooter was a stickler for continuity and consistency, something I don’t think a lot of EIC care about nowadays.

      • Continentalop says :

        I don’t mind that Clairmont changed Magneto toad, but I was just pointing out that was when he started to become inconsistent. In fact, I think it was a necessary change to move him away from the other major villains in Marvel and give him a more unique personality. Clairmont and Miller gave both Magneto and Kingpin a unique spin, making two already interesting villains even more interesting,

        But I will say I think Clairmont should have given a rational for Magneto’s change of heart other than just saying “I think he should be more sympathetic.” Of course, Clairmont loved to just do stuff without explaining it or if it went against character – Byrne was pissed at him for how he wrote Doom in an X-Men book one, I remember.

      • Jarv says :

        Did he make Doom metrosexual?

    • tombando says :

      Conti pops i had those 2 Defenders comics, 13 and 14? Read the first one at 8 and then Finally got the next one a good 15 years lator. I liked it. Was a bit late but whatever.

  12. Continentalop says :

    Ok, one more thing –

    I just reread the script for Little Miss Sunshine and saw the movie again, and while I still don’t like it, I realize one thing…

    How can they handle the idea of an ensemble cast, a “family”, yet the X-Men can’t handle the concept of a team and have to focus on Wolverine only? Each of the characters in Little Miss Sunshine had an arc, so why is it only three characters in the X-Men movie have anything resembling arcs (and really only Wolverine has one)?

    • koutchboom says :

      Also isn’t there a arch about one of them being accepted as a gay man in that movie? Wasn’t that Abigail Breslin story line?

  13. Ort Beast. says :

    I like this one fine, for a lead off batter to the series, they just required Singer to get’em on base, and he did. Doubled off the wall and got stranded, but hey you can’t have Everything.

    Is the DC of this any better-? I started out on AICN about when this came out.

  14. ThereWolf says :

    I dunno about the gay subtext in ‘X-Men’ – I thought the subtext referred to any persecuted group of people. I always miss that stuff.

    Anyway, I thought ‘X-Men’ was okay when I first saw it. When I watched it again a few years later, I thought it flat and boring, it didn’t date well. And this line:

    “Do you know what happens to a Toad when it’s struck by lightning. The same thing that happens to everything else.”

    That is fucking awful. But I did like Wolverine calling Cyclops “a dick”.

    Nice one, Pillow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: