In a recent job applications I had the opportunity of thinking of recommending 5 movies to my favorite film. Not an easy task considering that my favorite film goes under the radar, but none the less, I think I did a good job. I was only allowed to used 20 words in the job application, but I’ll use more here because I can.

The Moon’s Our Home (Seiter; 1936) – Only currently found on VHS and very rarely on TV, but worth the search; it is my all-time favorite movie. It is a story about a movie starlet and an explorer/author who despise one another and fall in love without knowing who the other really is. Opposites never attracted so beautifully as in this film. If you have had the privilege of seeing this ‘screw-ball’, then you know why this is my fav. The sheer disgust and resentment on their faces at times, both Henry Fonda and Margret Sullivan play their parts unequivocally, small glances that you could easily miss the first few viewings tell so much and add layers of comedic genius. Then the times when they hold and gaze in each others eyes is a celluloid wonder. This movie, in my humble opinion, is one of the first inventive uses of talkies though a decade after the first. Why? Because of their simultaneous talk that is so crucial to the comedic tension and story it is difficult to think of how the script must have looked. Why this movie is not on DVD is beyond comprehension. I’ll see if I can get a clip up soon of some of the goodiness.

In the movie, both characters are jealous of each others accolade, never seeing who it is that is getting all the attention. Yet, they both smoke a cigarette as they slip into bed for the night, ah the good ol’ days. Match made in heaven they get married under their aliases in a ceremony that is by far the best ever. They run separate directions and then try to find each other under their alias names, but cannot. Ah, I can’t describe the gold, you’ll just have to sniff this one out like a bloodhound like I had to.

Recommendations:

The Lady Eve (Stuges; 1941) – How does a professional con-artist swoon for, and then capture an upstanding brewery heir? By being herself. Henry Fonda plays the target for a con-artist family, but Barbara Stanwycks character eventually falls in love with the charming, gullible guy. He finds out who she really is, they have a falling out, obviously. Do they get back together? She’s a con, of course she finds a way. Basically by making him marrying a whore, who is Barbara Stanwyck’s character. Great film.

You’ve got Mail (Ephron; 1998) – Corny? Yes. Very much so. Comparable because they fall in love with each other, while hating the maligned idea of one another. Now, I actually didn’t watch this movie for the longest time because of the ridiculous name and AOL reference, but since it is Nora Ephron one must at least give it a shot (it’s got Dave Chappelle in it.). For those ‘too cool’ to see it; Tom Hanks, plays a family that has a chain of bookstores like Barnes & Noble, Meg Ryan plays an owner of a small bookstore. Of course they hate each other. That is the beauty of this movie. They are both internet geeks when they go home like we all have become that are reading this and writing blogs and chatting via internet. So if you were like me, don’t judge.

Swept Away (Wertmüller; 1975) – Laboring working man and a pampered rich woman get stranded on an island… oh, how the tables turn. Sad ending though. If you know and like anything about the D/s scene, you will be enthralled with this film. I haven’t seen the remake yet, this one seems dated at first, the porno-style music, the rich fast-talk a lot of nonsense at the beginning that turned me off to the first couple of viewings of this film. That is purposefully of course because you are meant to want these spoiled rich folk talk about seemingly meaningless crap, you feel like the one of the ship-hands having to listen to it, and wanting to strangle them into silence. When the hired hand and bratty minx get on the island, the man-slave becomes the Master and the Mistress becomes the slave. The intensity of the film you will have to see for yourself. I will say you need to stay for when they get on the island before you turn it off, it’s worth it, trust me. Funny stuff.

*note: I love rich people, I myself will be one, however, there is a difference between wealthy/rich and spoiled/rich. Actually, it is a common theme in Lena Wertmüllers body of work. One of my favorite women directors, always provocative and clever.

Clueless (Heckerling; 1995) – One irresponsible growing teen and a dependable young law intern. Two people who never seem to match, yet perfect? I was fortunate enough to meet Amy Heckerling while I was going to college at Brooks Institute of Photography, very cool woman, she would hold South Park parties. Anyway, if you haven’t seen this one, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s a great flick. It brings back those days of the cute John Cusack doing his honorable, nice-guy thing character. He’s the perfect match for an overprivileged Alicia Silverstone with his non-judgmental adversary role that Paul Rudd plays wonderfully.

The Love Parade (Lubitch; 1929) – Battle of sexes must have been a great time to be alive. Switching gender roles, this movie takes ‘sexist’ to a whole new level. Okay, so basically a unwed Queen finds a suitor in a promiscuous French soldier, they get married. Not happily ever after though, he is a prince and she the Queen, as the manly ‘macheesmo’ gets sucked from out of the Frenchman the Queen becomes the Dominant role of their Kingdom. While this film enforces stereotypical gender roles like “hunter/gatherer” and “stay-at-home/nurturer” its a great flick and actually, its shiz that many relationships argue over to this day… who wears the pants.

That’s all I got for now, but know that I have several more reviews on the horizon, some of them include:

Summer Lovers: Sleeper classic from the 80′s

Pennies from Heaven: Best (yet most overlooked) musical evah!

Seven Year Itch: Censorship and Monroe

Farrelly Brothers movies; retrospective

A Short Film about Love v.s. A Short Film about Killing

I’ve been working on these every so often so stay tuned for these coming up. I bid you adieu and many gracias-es.

Being a comic book dork, i will be the first to say that i liked the first and second X-Men and Spider-Man movies. With all the errors that do not ring true to the comics and all. I would still not shoot them if their DVD’s were the only targets at a shooting range. Unfortunately, I cannot make anything close to that statement with the third movies of each franchise, in fact, i would want to find a way to posses a highly illegal futuristic semi-automatic assault weapon to tear the DVD’s into shreds and as it took apart the movie it would erase it from all existence as a reality and a memory in the current dimension that we inhabit.

Man, i gotta start workin’ on one of those. If i did, i assure you it would purely be for destroying these movies so that they could make a third one of each all over again! This started as a list of wrongs about the third Spider-Man and X-Men movies, but the list was so big for the X-Men 3 movie that i had to give it it’s own article. I didn’t expect that X3 would be this bad when i would watch it for a second time and actively look for errors, but i quickly realized that it was sooo incredibly bad. I wasn’t planning on doing a scene by scene analysis of why this movie sucked so hard, but i was so appalled with almost every scene upon second viewing that i had to.

Feel free to skip some sections as each is very detailed and can be quite heavy in one reading but trust me, it’s worth the read for anyone who is or is not a comic fan or an X-Men 3 fan, or indifferent for that matter. However, please read the Scenes and Dialogue section as it is very comprehensive and shows in great detail the level and quality that this movie set forth as a part of a trilogy and as a just movie unto itself. I attempted to write this article for anyone who has or has not seen the three X-Men movies or reads the comic, but who know of the X-Men and major characters, whether i succeeded or not will be seen. Feel free to use the comment section as a sort of forum to discuss your thoughts on this movie or article, if this article changed your thoughts on the movie or if you still feel the same about this movie i would love to read your responses. Now i present you, the beautiful public, with my review of X-Men 3: The Last Stand.

X-MEN 3: *this does contain spoilers because it is a comprehensive list*

Where to begin.

Simon Kinberg, who wrote such greats as the xXx sequel and Mr. & Mrs. Smith (i admit, i do like that one), and Zak Penn who is responsible for the story of The Last Action Hero (one of the biggest commercial disasters), Behind enemy lines (worst Owen Wilson movie), and Fantastic Four the Video Game…. and we’re off to a great start! David Hayter who had a hand in scripting the first two, wasn’t there. Why? It boggles the mind. Probably because it was cheaper.

Brett Ratner, of Rush Hour series fame. The studio couldn’t wait, they wanted their movie out before Superman Returns, which Bryan Singer, the man who cared about the X-Men series was directing. Fox didn’t want to be outdone by Warner Bros. and by the person who did the first two X-Men movies, so they pushed their release date and got a director with no experience with X-Men at the helm of the X-Series. Why? Money or ego? I’ll go with ego, because the budget for this movie, believe it or not is the highest out of the three.

Now lets get to the nitty gritty.

They must have thought they were pretty clever to put three different comic plot lines (which were major turning points in the comic but were at completely different points in time) and slop them on a script, they weren’t. The problem is; they could have been way more clever in the execution.

Let’s go with the major one to me, which was THE PHOENIX OR DARK PHOENIX: Ok, so it was apparent at the end of X2 they were somewhat changing the story of the Phoenix. Jean Grey died with her Phoenix powers saving the rest of the X-Men from getting blasted by a tidal wave. Every fan of the comic book knew she was coming back when they saw the Phoenix underneath the water in the last shot of X2. First of all, for those who do not know, in the comics and animated TV show (not X-Men: Evolution) Phoenix was an ethereal entity from the cosmos that inhabited Jean Grey because of her mutant power, through her human body the Phoenix found senses and emotions that it had never had before, it/she turned dark and evil when a crew of villains, the Hellfire Club, worked together with their mutant powers to sway her to their crew. Now, this might sound effen’ stupid, but actually, the way it was done in the comic and even in the cartoon was really deep and meaningful. In the comic Jean made a psychic rapport with Scott (Cyclops), so their minds would be linked no matter what, which would have made a good flashback in this movie to establish that they loved each other deeply, even if Wolverine made advances. The Helfire Club had five major members, two of which were in charge of getting Phoenix to their side, White Queen and Mastermind. White Queen a.k.a. Emma Frost is very similar to Jean Grey except for her upbringing and attitude, where Jean had humbleness and gratitude Emma had condescension and entitlement. Mastermind had powers to create a fantasy world and present it to you as your reality, so for example, lets say you were sitting and reading in front of your computer like you are now, you look around and all of a sudden you’re in a classroom, its one of your old classrooms, you look forward; the computer is gone and a teacher you don’t recognize is asking you a question, you start to recognize her like you would if you were in a dream and you answer the question and you start to become a part of that fantasy. If you have seen the second movie, think of that dude in the wheel chair that did this to Professor X because his dad made him. Alright, so, picture that on a grand scale, ok? They wove this fantasy in front of Jean Grey/Phoenix believe that her experiences with the X-Men were a dream, and she was really white slave owner in the 1700′s colonial America. Then, made her believe all of the X-Men were bad guys, cheating slaves, bad servants, etc., even her love, Scott Summers. Now as soon as Mastermind stabbed Scott Summers through the chest in a duel, Phoenix instantly knew she was in a fantasy due to the psychic rapport with Scott and vengefully kicked ass scrambling minds and putting them through things that can’t really be explained in the physical realm. Now this was so cool, because to picture one of the good girls retarding a bad guys mind to the extent that he is now infantile… bad ass; it was because of the ethereal being Phoenix that she did this, Phoenix being new to that amount of human betrayal and her now being human and experiencing emotions tied to revenge, can counter act in various ways that are both inhumane and immoral (because being humane and moral have no basis for an ethereal being). Think about that for a second and re-read if you need to to grasp the immensity of this concept…. isn’t that bad ass? Now, i know that somethings need to be changed for the sake of adaptation, but, one can still put a better amount of WHY to adapt a certain story, instead of the face value of “cool powers that are limitless”, which is what i feel the novice writers were doing. No talent, wannabe hacks. They can’t even be hacks correctly.

Let’s now take to the second plot, that of the MUTANT CURE! Alright, this opens on the Angel and his dad who is ashamed of him which leads him to develop the cure. Ok. At face value, this starts off pretty well, i guess. The thinking writer/comic fan in me must state that Angels father was a member of the outer circle of the Hellfire Club (the inner circle being the villainous mutant crew). Think of the Freemasons or the illuminati if you have trouble with this concept. Now i think that would and could have been a cool thing to tie in to because it would have opened the doors to introduce other mutant villains into the universe intelligently and it would have made for an easy tie in with these two plots. Angels father being one of the Hellfire Club and the Hellfire Club being the reason why Phoenix turns evil. I think it would have been better also because the stupid ways this movie introduced juvenile thinking mutants instead of better villains to have to overcome. The mutant cure plot line comes from the comic new ‘Astonishing X-Men’ title that came out in 2004. In the comic book “the cure” was developed by an alien, the adaptation made one of the mutants have “the cure” as their power, i actually like that part of this movie. However, i think there is a little inconsistently between the X2 and X3 that may or may not matter to some; okay, i’m fairly certain the boy’s name is LEECH and he is in the custody of Worthington Labs. I think that LEECH was in the second one, for those who have seen it, i believe he was the one who sticks out his tongue and its a bluish snake tongue in the beginning and end of the movie. Maybe someone can verify this. I am aware of a Leech in the comics and cartoon that does have these powers, but i believe he had control over them if i’m not mistaken.

There is something wrong with just about every scene in this ‘movie’ both as an X-Men movie and just as a movie in general. Unless this movie took place in a dream or in some weird alternate universe, it is pretty bad. Feel free to watch the movie as you read this if you have it on hand.

First scene, Jean Grey as a kid able to lift 10+ cars at once, she never had this amount of power as a kid. But for the adaptation i’ll go with it.

A young Angel trying to shave off his wings, a cool concept, but, when his dad comes in he says “not you”, do you actually think that a person would say that in such a fast reaction time? he knows WTF is going on immediately, i would have thought he was torturing a dove or something. We’ll let this one go too.

Wolverines arrogance is no longer identifiable in this movie, maybe because the way its shot or having the danger room as his opening scene but he is no longer looked upon as a hyper-aware, loner individual he once was, he is now seen as a person who resembles a bumbling idiot. He criticizes the students for sitting around while he stands there after being hit in the face with a large piece of metal or rock and an explosion goes off in back of him while he takes a puff of his cigar and still hasn’t moved an inch. Lights his cigar off of burning debris, even though it’s the danger room and the fire is fake, then tells Storm not to worry and almost gets squashed. Comedy (that doesn’t work) before character was Brett Ratner’s take on this scene. Wolverine then walks (leisurely mind you) over to Colossus who throws him toward the Sentinel. A scene that was better in the comics because there was a real threat to take down, not something for practice, but we’ll let this go because it’s a set-up for a sort of pay off later on. The Sentinels head looks like it was barely on the body of the Sentinel, there are a few large cords while there are 30 times as many electrical cords in a real life toy robot. Are we to believe that this head was actually attached to a large mechanical body at some point in time?

The scene between Logan and Scott about getting over Jean, that was actually well done. Scott leaves saying “we can’t all heal as quickly as you Logan.” Pat yourself on the back Brett, you did one good scene! Corny line and all.

Professor X is talking to his class about something that is actually very interesting, i thought was going to be a set up for a cool plot, but nay, he’s interrupted. Storm is throwing up dark clouds and lighting, her eyes are normal and looking straight ahead, professor goes to her and says it was supposed to be a sunny day and then Storm says “sorry” and has to do her white eyes and look up at the sky in order for it to clear. This doesn’t make any sense at all, if you are going to make a process in which the character must follow to do something, you must stick with it. It’s like saying we must both turn the key at the same time… only, um, it sometimes does work when only one key is turned. But we’ll let this go and say she was emotional at first and then she consciously then used her power. Professor then says “I don’t need to be psychic to see somethings bothering you.”, isn’t this exact line in X2? Storm’s hair is better in this piece of crap that i hesitate calling a film though, won’t argue that.

Magneto talks to some mutants holding a meeting, his dialogue is flat but seems to grab the attention of three mutants who start to pick on him because of his cape, but then want to join him? One of the mutants can sense the ‘Class’ of mutants. Okay, before this movie the term ‘Class’ has never been uttered as a normal term or used in this context, comic or otherwise, but all of a sudden its universally understood what a ‘Class 3′ mutant is. Nice set-up… *ahem*, not.

Scott finds (Dark) Jean after she comes out of the water, she seems to be affectionate towards him, but really that was just a ploy to blow him away? I have a hard time with this because they had a psychic rapport, a link with each others mind. As i said before, in the comic, the bad guys were putting a false reality in front of Jean and making her do their bidding, it wasn’t until one of the bad guys stabbed Scott that she remembered and saw through the facade around her. Way more provoking because it showed that Scott and Jean did actually love each other and were linked. The thing is they didn’t have to go by the comic book in order to convey this emotion for each other. They could have found another way.

It’s foggy when Wolvie and Storm appear on the crime scene, and, as if we hadn’t seen the overhead shot of storm using her powers enough, we see this dramatic shot. Storm looks up at the sky, eyes turn white, all the power of the weather is now in control of STORM… so, she, can, clear some fog… very dramatic… clearing fog. I’ve seen film-school students use this overhead shot in better context.

They take Jean back to the X-Mansion where the Prof. explains that her powers must have wrapped her in a cocoon of telekinetic energy. “Is she gonna be okay?” Wolvie asks inquisitively. “Jean Grey is the only Class 5 mutant i’ve encountered, her potential practically limitless.” Of course, “Class 5”, from that classification system that we’ve all know about from the prior movies-… er, i mean less than 10 minutes ago. Then Prof. explains that he has set up walls in Jean’s mind without her knowing, creating a dual personality called Phoenix. Maybe it’s me, but i don’t like explanatory dialogue, it reminds me of bad storyline porn, where the little missy is havin’ trouble with her plumbin’, but it’s a ‘good thang’ Dirk the plumber’s around, this movie is full of this dialogue. Besides that however, getting me to believe that the Professor did that to Jean is hard for me to swallow (another bad storyline porn). To me the Professor would know better than to do this, because of the repercussions that would happen if he did i.e. she would go crazy if the barriers were gone. So this change of the original comic plot line doesn’t serve the movie for the better either and doesn’t ring true to the characters. Professor X only set up the barriers in Jeans mind AFTER the Phoenix inhabited her body, not before, in effect he actually created the dual personality, he created the problem. Wolverine is the one who is the intelligent one in this scene and says to him that was a mistake, Professor X replies “You have no idea.” how bad this movie will be? Probably not.

Everybody’s lined up to get “the cure”, Angel is first because his dad funded/invented it. Angel changes his mind. Ok, that’s cool, that believable. But then he breaks through the building window as if it were a single pane of glass even though it was 40 floors up at least. Yet another logistical error. Are the people who made this movie 7 years old and not know that windows on tall buildings such as that are incredibly hard to break? Brett could have had Angel throw or push something through the window to break it, at least that would have attempted to be realistic. But no. They don’t go that extra level of thought. This kind of stuff works in Rush Hour movies, not in a movie where everything needs to be logistically accurate except for the mutant powers. Thus making it that much more believable.

Magneto goes to get Mystique out of confinement, and they soon release the other inmates. As soon as they’re released the other inmates are totally on board with Magneto. This lacks, oh i don’t know, motivation from these characters. Juggernaut and The Multiple Man who gets caught for bank robbery and all of a sudden care about mutant liberation? Makes no sense. Mystique leaps in front of Magneto who almost gets shot with “the cure”. Believable, good job writers, BUT…. after she’s shot and turns human, Magneto stands over her and basically says ‘oh well, thanks, later’. Not a crouch. Not a kneel or giving her his cape so she can cover her naked body as a small token for years of service to him and their cause. Nothing like that. Instead, this is used as a plot device to make Magneto the stereotypical “uncaring bad guy”. Again the creators are 7 years old and to them things are black and white. No grey. I’m actually insulting 7 year olds by this comparison because they would pick up on these sorts of things. This plot device is also used to set-up that “the cure” is now being used as a replacement for bullets. Two birds with one scene writers; way to go! Maybe i should make all my scripts this easy.

Jean grabs Logan’s arm in the infirmary. As seen in the first movie. This movie has no originality whatsoever. But i’ll let this scene go as it was one of the least worst, and showed some emotional ties and psychological intrigue. So anyway, after making out with him (a Wolvie-Fan jerk off scene), she blasts Logan on his ass and leaves. Storm and Charles show up later, and the first words out of the Prof.’s mouth are “What have you done? I warned you.”, maybe someone can prove me wrong, but i have never considered Charles saying any of these phrases, why? Because he’s not an abusive person; he’s an enlightened individual who doesn’t need to accuse anyone of something he knows would have happened anyway, especially when it was his fault to begin with. Basically, in this scene Charles tries to pass the buck and accuse someone else for his mistake. Again, this makes no sense in terms of character and how they would act. Even if you’re not a fan of comics, one has to be a fan of non-schizophrenic characters in movies who change and behave erratically. When i was 7 years old, i already knew that Professor X wouldn’t say this from what little i had read of the X-Men, mostly from just looking at the pictures. Who are these writers? What are they? Because i am starting to wonder.

X and Magneto go to the house to get Jean on their side. Eric starts to rial things up as if he doesn’t know that doing this could and will prove fatal to Charles. This wishy-washy Magneto cares for Charles but doesn’t at the same time, he basically eggs Jean on to do something bad to Charles, then he calls out his name when he sees that Jean is about to do something horrible to Charles. No sense. After seeing his long time friend get blown away to smithereens by Jean, he immediately goes over to her and says “my dear, come with me”. Once again stereotypical bad guy with no emotion or motivations at all, but just enough energy to keep the crappy plot moving along. The fight scene between the other mutants was done fairly well. Wait a minute. No it wasn’t. Storm strikes one of the bad mutants with a BOLT OF LIGHTNING; a bad mutant who’s only powers are simply that she is fast and can detect the ‘class’ of mutants. But she stands up after getting STRUCK BY LIGHTNING as if it were as light as a tap on the chin and starts to kick Storms ass. Storm getting her ass beat was pretty funny though.

Storm talks at Professor X’s memorial, she doesn’t have a bruise or scratch on her, even though her head was slammed through a glass table and various solid objects in the previous scene. Bobby holds Kitty’s hand. I haven’t even talked about this horrendous attempt at a plot line but due to the next scene, i will.

So Bobby tries to comfort Kitty while she cries. Why is he there? Let’s take it at the beginning where they set-up this disgrace for a plot line, in the danger room where Kitty saves him from a missile and he says “thanks” with a deep gaze while Rogue sees. The second scene for this plot is when Bobby is saying he never pressures her about it and Rogue is saying to Bobby how all men think of “one thing”. Girls do say this but, not necessarily in this way, it’s a pretty cliché way to make this statement. However, Bobby kind of is pressuring her by the way he is so obviously looking at Kitty. People fall out of love, thats understandable, the way in which this is taken on by the writers is so manipulative and un-realistic. In the previous scene he only holds Kitty’s hand, ok? Even though he could have held Rogue’s because of her gloves. In this scene Kitty is crying, Bobby comes to her rescue and freezes the fountain so he and Kitty can ice skate… pretty romantically by my book. Rogue sees this from afar again and decides that she’s gonna get ‘cured’ because she can’t do these things with Bobby or in general? This has nothing to do with her super-power, yet she makes it about her power. Ok, seems a bit weighty to be put into this movie but, i’ll go with it. So in the end, after she gets ‘cured’ and goes back to the school, she and Bobby hold hands and look into each others eyes deeply. Bobby says “this isn’t what i wanted.” Rogue replies “no, this is what i wanted.” Which to me sends the message to me that sex was the only thing on Bobby’s mind because now he’s looking at her like he was looking at Kitty, and Rogue got her mutant powers taken away so she could have sex too, because she wanted Bobby to have sex with her and not Kitty. Am i wrong here? Is there another way to interpret this plot the way it is presented in this movie? The strangest movie i have ever seen. Moving right along.

So now that the government has seized “the cure” they now have plastic machine guns that shoot this like a tranquilizer and have cases of “the cure” on hand. They stand outside of Worthington Labs while mutants line up for the cure. While they’re in line, it still doesn’t make sense to me why the soldiers do not shoot every mutant that wants to be ‘cured’. It would save a lot of time and energy. And there would be less people on the picket line if this happened… because there would be no one to picket.

Magneto storms Alcatraz, a majority of his thousands minions jump like grasshoppers toward the action, as if all mutants have super jumping abilities? Not to mention that he relocated the Golden Gate bridge, which up to this point we have not seen this scale of power from Magneto. Now, the army has all kinds of weapons with “the cure” as ammo, smart bombs, bullets, cannons. that was quick. the Blackbird flies overhead and Storm makes it go “into stealth mode”, yet another logistical error. The SR-71 Blackbird is a real aircraft in this world that we live in, it DOES in fact, have stealth capabilities… TO RADAR DETECTION. It does not mean that the jet can turn invisible as it does in the movie. In the first movie, Cyclops asks Storm to lay down some fog so that they can sneak up on the bad guys in the aircraft. So it would appear as though this jet does not have active camouflage like some kind of Star Trek airship cloaking device. In the comic they do, but it is alien technology that is not introduced or talked about in the movies. If we humans can do things like make airplanes turn invisible, what is so extraordinary about mutants? No sense.

So anyway, the X-Men show up, start fighting bad ass. Magneto orders Juggernaut to kill the boy, Leech, who’s mutant genes made “the cure”. Juggernaut says “My pleasure.” Is it? Because i haven’t heard anything about it from you before this moment, that’s what we call ‘bad writing’. All that aside, he goes in, so does Kitty to save the kid. She grabs Juggernaut and pulls him half-way through the floor, now i would think that this would either A) Kill him or B) completely sever his legs from his upper body. Why? Simple science and physics says so; where did the rest of the floor go that his body is now displacing? It would be mixed with his matter that makes up his flesh and bones, therefore he would become one with the floor he was stuck in and probably be cut from his lower half. But this movie clearly is done outside the realm of any possible world that we live in by now. So anyway, Juggernaut is stuck in the floor and says “Do you know who i am? I’m the Juggernaut bitch!”, some will not know this but this line is stolen from an on-line parody of the cartoon. I love the parody by My Way Entertainment, however, when a so-called professional writer or director, needs to pay homage to internet parodies for a laugh, the state and level of professionalism is in serious decline… which i am convinced by this ‘movie’ it is. Again, not an original thought was thrown into this movie from the creators, and these ‘writers’ should not be a part of a WGA strike as they do write, but i flinch every time i call them writers.

Back to the mutant fight where it’s 5 v.s. 500, but the 5 X-Men are still kicking ass. Storm finally fries the chick that she struck with lightning earlier who wasn’t that effected before, but now that she is by electric generators, now she’s done for. Magneto and Pyro start to throw flaming cars that everybody runs from, while Jean sits idly by like she has been for the past hour or so, even though she is one of the plots, but she IS evil, because she’s standing behind Magneto, who is also evil. So the X-Men look at some of the hypodermic tranquilizer-like syringes filled with “the cure” that are everywhere on the ground. I wonder what they’re gonna do? Colossus throws Wolverine toward Magneto as a decoy for Beast to stab Eric with “the cure”. Bobby turns into a literal Iceman while fighting Pyro to take him out; maybe as a possible set up that in his ice form he can make out with Rogue? No, that would require too much thought and creativity. Anyways, Magneto crawls around and says “this is what they want for all of us.” to Jean, well that’s cool, at least he sticks to his mutie guns about this ‘us v.s. them’ crap. Jean seems to be calm though, BUT THEN reinforcements arrive, automatically try to shoot Jean which pisses her off and throws her into a Dark Phoenix spiral. Everything that happened in the scene where she blows away Xavier is in this scene, crap is flying around, she’s disintegrating things left and right, explosions are going off, people are running; pure Exorcist Part 3 events. Everybody who is still alive runs away. INCLUDING LEECH, THE KID WHO COULD HAVE TAKEN JEANS POWERS AWAY BY BEING IN THE VICINITY!!! Then the camera zooms into Magneto’s face so he can deliver what is seriously, the most cliché line ever… “what have i done?”. I must have laughed out loud with tears for a solid ten minutes when i first saw this shot. As if all the things leading up to this point didn’t convince him, this eventually did? This supposedly intelligent man who helped Charles build a complicated thing like Cerebro, who saw her blow away Charles a couple days ago, who almost got shot with “the cure” by her in a previous scene, who himself has been a holocaust survivor, now he finally sees the error in his ways? You cannot be serious. Wolverine kills Jean in what is supposed to be a heart-wrenching scene but i cannot stop laughing at the absurdity of thinking this ‘movie’ is associated with the other two. And on the second viewing i cannot stop asking myself how come Scott couldn’t have done this since they were the ones who deeply loved each other.

Everything is back to normal at the school front. Scott and Jean have separate tombstones, which i have a hard time with because, they were inseparable, but i guess not in the movie. Rogue is ‘cured’ sending a message that if your black and having a hard time, you should definitely try to get an operation to make yourself white. But whatever makes you happy, i guess, was the message. Every time i see the helicopter shot of Logan on the balcony, i swear, it makes me think i was watching some sort of Twilight Zone episode. So Angels flying high, as Magneto plays chess with himself like the old geezer that he is, of course he’s playing with metal pieces. He’s extending his hand, can he move it? Oh man, i don’t know. Oh wait i think it mo- DIRECTED BY BRETT RATNER! It’s laughable that someone would want others to know that one directed this heaping pile, but, whatever. Credits. Oh my gosh professor X is still alive in a computer, clever, cle-ver.

I think only comic geeks will understand this analogy i wrote on the imdb boards, but, it was as if X3 was actually a part of the “What if…” comic series titled “What if a horrible movie factory made an X-Men movie by setting a release date before writing a decent script and without making sure to hold onto the director which made their movie series bloom?”

In other words, this movie was held in such an non-real universe that i have a hard time believing that people who were involved with the process of this film consider this a part of the X-Series. In my opinion there was way too much of Storm and Wolverine, and a high disregard for other characters such as Cyclops, Professor X, Jean, Magneto and the list goes on. Not too mention the logistical errors that make this ‘movie’ less and less realistic as it wears into you.

I am so glad i BitTorrented this movie for free instead of renting it or seeing it in the theater because i would have demanded money back from the studio, which that process would have taken way too long and they probably wouldn’t have anyway. Thank God (and Bram Cohen for being the vessel) for BitTorrent.

I would love to hear what you thought of this review of X3 , please pass this around to friends, fans, co-workers, studio executives responsible, and everyone else who you think would have opinions of this review. I can’t wait to hear responses as it took me a while to make this review (about a day or two). And for the people who will say “Well why don’t you make a better one?”, believe me, i have already thought about it and i will start a treatment for it soon and post it here to compare it with the one that got produced into that thing we now call X-Men 3: The Last Stand

Mmmm, the two names i wish i knew when i was 15 and getting shot down in high school. The time i wasted on the girls and bad porn i used in their stead. Damn shame. This is an ode to my aphrodisiacs; Charlotte Rampling and Helen Mirren.

For those who don’t know, both of these women were and for that matter still are, goddesses of the gray and silver screen. And if you are in the ripe age of discovering, um [throat clear], yourself, boy or girl; Helen Mirren and Charlotte Rampling are a must.

Sex exuded from Helen Mirren since her first major film, Age of Consent (directed by Michael Powell of the infamous Powell and Pressburger.) Wonder what it’s about? Me too. From what i gather it’s about a washed up artist who finds new inspiration through Helen’s young character, a creative muse… and the hilarity ensues. By the time she was in the quintessential The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, she was a woman who was so comfortable in her body it’s infallible. And just in case your a woman and you’re wondering, yes; that is the sexiest thing to a man, ever, period. And i gather it is the same for women. Mirren has this sexual presence that acts similar to spanish fly; pheromones raise the hair on the back of ones neck with a look, because with that look you can see what she wants and how she’s going to get it.

Not in a cheap, gonzo pornish way either.

The first time i saw Charlotte Rampling was in the very sadistic and masochistic The Night Porter, and what a great first time it was. Saw it with a woman film affectionado, best night ever. The film’s about a chance encounter between a survivor of the holocaust and one of the German army officers that held her captive. They react to each other at first like you would an old acquaintance; you remember them or their face but you wonder if the other remembers you. I don’t want to give too much away because i think you should see it, however i should say that it has a fair deal of S&M… mmmm, and um… oh what the hell, it’s between the Jew and the Nazi, there i said it. You may want to skip this one if that disturbs you, either that or lighten up and get in touch with your sadomasochistic self, i suggest the latter. If you ask me it’s the human condition wrapped in sex, who doesn’t like that? I like Charlotte for different reasons then Helen, Charlotte, especially in The Night Porter, represents all that’s rough, messy, nasty and even wrong about sex. It’s great.

These women both are sexual iconoclasts, oozing the qualities that ancient greeks knew as Aphrodite, the Goddess of sensuality, sexuality and love. To me, they still do even as they’re pushing 60, if given the chance to make sweet sweet love to them, i definitely would, i’m not alone. I can list 10 heterosexual women that would if given that chance as well. Both of these women aged beautifully into magnificent mature adults, both embody the beautiful deity Aphrodite, Helen and Charlotte, my lovely aphrodisiacs.
Young Helen Mirren:

Age of Consent (1969)

Hussy (1980)

The Cook, The Thief, his Wife and her Lover (1989)

Young Charlotte Rampling:

Farewell My Lovely (1975)

The Night Porter (1974)

On Ne Meurt Que Deux Fois (1985)

A more “mature” Helen Mirren:

The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (2003)

Calendar Girls (2003)

The Passion of Ayn Rand (1999)

A more “mature” Charlotte Rampling:

Swimming Pool (2003)

Désaccord Parfait (2006)

Under The Sand (2000)

When first seeing a film from each director, one has opposing reactions in their opposing styles. John Cassavetes had a raw, edgy style that one now sees as commonplace in TVshows that have shaky camera and each contain more slapping of faces than all Three Stooges episodes combine. Stanley Kubrick had a scrutinizing, analytical mind who would make films like a grandmaster chess champion, he would set his moves very carefully and very precise.

What they have in common? A lot, actually. Aside from their completely different styles, they where both about discovery. They would both film with a very limited crew, nothing too grandiose. Technique and method: both would have very solid scripts and have a very clear picture of the performance ahead of time and rehearsals and amount of takes until they were satisfied were numerous. They both directed about 12 feature films, they are both currently deceased and haven’t risen yet.

When first thinking of this idea, i thought this will be a hard one, but in the beginning of writing this, i had already come to my conclusion. Studio V.S. Independent.

In the end, the choice was an easy one. At the risk of getting much grief from many fellow film geeks, i regret to inform, Cassavetes wins! Hands dizzown, fo sheezy. After all, Kubrick doesn’t have songs written tributing him or his films. (Le Tigre – “What’s Yr Take On Cassavetes”, Fugazi – “Cassavetes”, Joan of Arc – “John Cassavetes, Assata Shakur, and Guy Debord Walk Into a Bar..”)

Now that i scared off 85% of the people reading this who know the Kubrick name, we can now go into how i even compared the two, because it wasn’t at all an easy task, as those who are familiar with both will no doubt agree.

I compared the two on many levels; Cinematic Presence, Framing, Lens Focus, Entertainment Value, Mise-en-sen (the surroundings of the character) etc. Kubrick won all of these, even the ones i didn’t list here, they tied for Artistic Merit. Cassavetes only excelled in one category that blew the rest of the list out of the water for Kubrick who was winning by a Mississippi mile.

Emotional Complexity. This category is so expansive and so far reaching that once you take a long look at it, it’s very easy to see why Cassavetes came out on top. Humanity, Humanization (two different things, but similar), Erratic behavior, Viewer participation, Viewer reaction, Intuition, i could go on.

It’s a broad statement to say that Cassavetes has very little fans, but i’ll make it, its sad but true. I’ll venture to say that you don’t even know who Cassavetes is, though, his number is growing everyday. Many might not know they are Cassavetes fans… even upon first viewing of one or two of his films; i was one of them. I bought a $100 Cassavetes set released by Criterion on a hunch that i would like his work, at first, i was so absolutely convinced that i had just wasted hours of my life watching, money i could have used at a strip club, cardboard and plastic that went into the packaging of the set, not to mention the hours i wasted at my minimum wage job ($5.75 at the time)… what the fuck was i thinking? what had i done? what had i done.

I was too busy trying to see something like a Kubrick that i couldn’t see what Cassavetes was about. Though lacking in making each frame a moving painting, he makes up for in spades with pure, raw emotion; so much so that it turned me off upon first viewing. In fact, i still don’t like some of his films, i can’t muscle through the first 30 minutes of a couple of them. Never even attempted to view others based on scenes i’ve watched from them… but i’ll view them when i need them the most in my life, i’m sure. But the Cassavetes films that i have seen and have developed to love and feel for, stick with me more than any Kubrick will.

Cassavetes, for those unfamiliar, is very hard to describe. Cinema Verté (shaky handheld camera) is one way, but that is so limiting to a person who gave his entire life to the pursuit of human emotion and experience. He immersed himself in theatre, rehearsing over and over, breaking through, finding a unfamiliar grounds for an actor but so familiar in life. Sometimes confusing, unrealistic, unmotivated, slightly disturbed (as we all are), but after time, you see none of the afore mentioned are true, and you wonder how or why you ever did before… sometimes. You can see how much he cared for each character, their reserve, their intensity, their pain, their sadness, their joy, their love, their growth, their hope. He didn’t like acting, he loved people in situations. You can tell by his films that this is true because he didn’t care if the focus was off, just as long as he got the emotion invested in those characters in frame. The best way to describe him i guess, is a humanist/artist, in the truest sense of the words. And although all of his films are verily tumultuous, in the end, you shouldn’t be depressed, you should have a good feeling of what you have just witnessed. Usually a happy ending, which is not seen today in most “indie films”, most of which nowadays are produced with studio backing anyway.

Kubrick, is an artist too, not so much of a humanist (though i’ve read he was very fond of certain people and animals.) His films are very plot oriented, leaving a sensitive person very distant from emotion in his pieces, but all are very entertaining, even his less known films like Barry Lyndon. Kubrick is very good at making the fantastic a reality, very intelligent in framing, acting and story. I liked all of Kubrick’s films from day one, the more i saw them however, the more i noticed how much he distanced himself from the characters he was capturing on film. He used the actor or actress to convey the idea that he wrote in a script. He was very into the ideas of his, when he visualized them into a reality, it is a sight to behold. Although i admire his work, i can see a divide when i try to find answers in life in his work, they simply do not provide them (to me at least). Even as an early photographer for a magazine, he still looked upon the subject instead of being the subject, even when he was the subject in a self-portrait.

If you haven’t seen a Kubrick, you’ve been living somewhere evil or you’re one of those intellectual types who are proud to say “i’ve read the book, never seen the movie” or “i don’t own a t.v.” Either way, it’s somewhere evil.

For those who have never seen a Cassavetes film, i’m both very excited and as cautious as a mother who wants their baby to experience life on your own, but doesn’t want you to be misguided. My best advice to you is start toward the middle of his career, the beautiful 70’s, gradually, working your way to his earlier stuff, while throwing in his 80’s here and there. Something that i wish, i was told when viewing Cassavetes for the first time. For those who have seen Cassavetes once and never again, good, more for me. They are not films that do the work for you, i hope you have better second viewing, if you choose to. For those who love Cassavetes and studied the man, you know what i’m saying and i don’t have to convince you, why are you reading this? Possibly because, like me, you hope that John Cassavetes will one day be available at your local Lackluster Video, or at least a household name, even if it is like almost every other great artist, posthumously. And with the work of all of his offspring (Nick, Xan, and Zoe), he will be in no time.

Suggested Viewing order of John Cassavetes for the person who is used to the current movie method:

Opening Night (79), Killing of a Chinese Bookie (78 version), A Woman Under the Influence (74), Minnie and Moskowitz (71), Love Steams (84) Husbands (70), Gloria (80), Faces (), Shadows (59 version). there are allegedly two versions of Killing, Faces and Shadows, the Cassavetes estate prefer you watch the ones he intended as final cuts.

Filmography of Stanley Kubrick:

The Killing (56), Paths of Glory (57), Spartacus (60), Lolita (62), Dr. Strangelove (64), 2001: Space Odyssey (68), A Clockwork Orange (71), Barry Lyndon (75), The Shining (80), Full Metal Jacket (87), Eyes Wide Shut (99)

Filmography of Nick Cassavetes:
John Q., The Notebook, Alpha Dog

Filmography of Alexandra Cassavetes:
Z Channel: A Magnificent Obsession

Filmography of Zoe Cassavetes:
Broken English

Feel free to use the above as a checklist of movies you must see before you DIE!