|
|
Post by luke on May 10, 2005 13:55:33 GMT -5
So I've been researching on X-Men 3, and boy am I not impressed. The first one was okay, the second one was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen, and this third one, with the new director, is looking to be an absolute fucking farce, a slap in the face of every X-Men fan who ever lived. Here's some "coming soon" news I read:
Credit: Comixfan.com
Contains Minor Spoilers.
NEWSFLASH! ComingSoon.net caught up with X-Men 3 director Matthew Vaughn while he was in New York to talk about his film Layer Cake. Vaughn commented on how his approach will differ from Bryan Singer's, saying, "I think Singer probably treats it in a more simplistic manner then I'm going to. It's going to expand on things. There's three or four scenes I know people will just be shocked and close to tears." Vaughn also explained, "I know that there's going to be elements I'm going to be bringing to it that will worry the fans in the sense that I want to make a movie that stands up in twenty, thirty years time basically. The film I'm doing is more in the tone of Unforgiven." He added, "I just want to make films that I think are entertaining. I like the idea of doing big budget films with a heart."
Vaughn also confirmed that he is trying to get pal Vinnie Jones to play Juggernaut, but said that Jones hasn't signed anything yet. "What's interesting about Juggernaut is that he's the brother of Professor X, and that's why I thought it would be interesting having an English thug opposite Patrick Stewart." Vaughn wasn't too familiar with Juggernaut's origin, but didn't think it wouldn't have anything to do with Vietnam. He also said that he had been looking into the Dark Phoenix story, but admitted that he thought "bits of it are great but other bits are a mess." Vaughn admitted that he is a fan of the comic book medium, but he wouldn't reveal his favorite comics because they might give away the plot for X-Men 3. He said, "they have become the basis for the film," and did admit a fondness for Joss Whedon's recent Astonishing run.
NEWSFLASH! A recent press release also all but officially confirmed that Vinnie Jones will be playing Juggernaut. The press release from Getminted Poker says Jones has been signed for the film where, as the face of Getminted Poker, he will use online poker to break the ice on the set. Jones would have to wear a latex costume to play the role. "Once I get out of that costume I shall shower and have some downtime playing poker online," Jones said.
NEWSFLASH! The Comic Reel is reporting, and IGN FilmForce has reportely confirmed, that Marvel's production company is auditioning actresses to play a new 17-year-old Kitty Pride, who will reportedly have a much bigger character in X-Men 3.
-----------------------------------------------
So this fucking asshole, who doesn't even know the storylines, is doing the movie. Vinnie Jones as Juggernaut? What the fuck is that? Juggernaut should either be played by some giant or be totally CGI. And the Phoenix saga, the most intriguing storyline in X-Men history, the storyline that for years defined that fucking comic, is okay in "bits and pieces"?!?!
The main problem with these shitty movies is that they rely on Extreme X-Men, which is this totally lame comic series that tries to make the X-Men seem "more realistic." Also, the thing that fucked up X-Men 2 was FOX. For some jackassy reason, they refused to give the movie the budget to do Sentinals. So, instead of having the cool-ass Genosha/Sentinal storyline, they used the lame, watered down, boring as all hell Extreme X-Men version of it. Same storyline, only with totally lame and boring results.
How in the fuck Vaughn is going to write out the Phoenix storyline, which Singer set up, is beyond me. Fuck this guy, he's going to be even worse than Singer.
And from what I understand, Singer is busy stinking up the new Superman flick. That's gonna be pretty shitty, too, I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by pattentank24 on May 10, 2005 14:10:42 GMT -5
Why would they send you to a movie that looked like a snoozefest from day one? Simple, Listening to us(THE SHOW) bitch everyone who listens to our show gets to call and make jokes at our expense(this supposedly is entertaing according to management) and give their 2 cents about what they thought But hey we get to see Star Wars Next week before the audience does so  Talking Sports,Music,Movies and getting paid for it is hard to seriously bitch about  only long hours sometimes on production work Most Importantly I never dread going to work everyday like most people |
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 10, 2005 14:23:31 GMT -5
That’s cool. What kind of station are you on? I absolutely don’t know what I would do without my morning show. I love them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on May 10, 2005 15:57:02 GMT -5
The "X" in X-men must stand for "dead" . . . ah well, what'd we expect into the 3rd installment of the franchise -?
Singer isn't that bad . . .to write off Superman like that. But I won't be surprised none if it sucks. Like The Fantastic 4 - - why even bother to see that? (If you're a REAL fan, that is)
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on May 10, 2005 15:59:05 GMT -5
I have to admit, Mary's write up has dimmed my enthusiasm for the new Solondz movie . . . but my own innate curiosity will get the best of me, eventually. I really did think HAPPINESS was a worthy movie. (As well as DOLL HOUSE) So . . .. maybe this one'll be a dollar movie. At least you saved me 6 bucks, Mary . . .
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 11, 2005 0:01:19 GMT -5
While I don't agree with some of the casting choices and lack of attention to other characters who deserved it, I thought Singer's X-Men films were at least entertaining and I liked how the sequel (the better film, IMO) used parts of the "God Loves, Man Kills" storyline.
And I won't rule out the new Superman film just yet. At least its Lois Lane will be attractive (but will Kate Bosworth capture the character's spunk like Margot Kidder? who knows...). And Spacey as Lex Luthor? Kewl...
But...yeah, Vinnie Jones as The Juggernaut...that's some repugnant shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissin2 on May 11, 2005 8:02:43 GMT -5
I would just like to say that I liked X Men 2, a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on May 11, 2005 10:34:15 GMT -5
Spacey is Luthor -? That seals the deal, for me. *psYched*
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on May 11, 2005 12:11:02 GMT -5
Whatever am I to do if I don't fit into either of these [bleak] categories, pray tell. Perhaps I will see the new Solondz movie without packing any baggage into the theater. *shrugz* I'm not really sure what's so "bleak" about appreciating moral complexity in art, or why that qualifies as "baggage" (??) but whatever. Mostly the movie was BORING because Solondz is perhaps the single most predictable director in the world today, and he gives you such paper-thin caricatures that you can't give a shit about any of them. I read some review that said "Solondz is like the Michael Bay of pessimism" and it's totally true. btw - just to be clear - I don't necessarily go to movies like Die Hard or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure expecting to be presented some kind of penetrating tableau of human emotions. Obviously there's a place for pure blowing-shit-up popcorn movie fun and stupid-humor fun at the movies and I'm all for both of them. But Solondz wants to be an artist who "has something to say" - he wants to be a serious satirist - and if you're trying to make a serious social commentary, then I do expect more than just junior high school nihilism. The movie was the cinematic equivalent of a 12 year kid wearing a t-shirt that says "FUCK EVERYTHING" on it. Sure, on some level I can appreciate the sentiment and I think everyone should go through their "fuck everything" stage at some point in their life, but Solondz is really a bit old for that, and 4 movies to make the same point that a t-shirt can make in 2 words seems a wee bit excessive. Is it really that "bleak" of me to want art that is a bit more challenging, that branches out, that portrays more than just one emotion? eh...whatever.... I watched La Strada last night and it was wonderful and poignant and beautiful and almost the precise opposite of a Todd Solondz movie. It definitely removed whatever bad aftertaste Palindromes left in my mouth... Another fabulous Italian movie I watched recently was Roberto Rossellini's Rome: Open City which is one of the defining films of neorealism. Quite amazing - it was filmed on a shoestring budget in Rome in the waning days of WWII, and it's about the Italian Resistance to Nazi occupation. The signs of war devastation are everywhere in the movie, and Rossellini makes it all the more harrowing and realistic by using real soldiers and police officers in many of the parts. It captures the experience of occupation and the moral courage of resistance (against all odds - a kind of doomed resistance just because One Must) beautifully and as such it's pretty fucking devastating. The Catholic priest, Don Pietro, who shelters resisters (who, in 1944 in Italy, were very often Communists) is one of the most inspiring characters I've seen in a movie in ages - you can't get this man out of your head. It's also hard not to compare this movie to Solondz - here you have a movie that is about one of the most shattering tragedies in the 20th century, and it's a fully tragic movie, with an absolutely devastating conclusion, but it doesn't traffic in cheap nihilism - it gives you characters who commit horrible horrible horrible acts, but it puts it in a context where you understand what they're doing. It also gives you heroic characters who martyr themselves to a completely futile and doomed cause. The movie is born out of Rossellini's own experience of the hellishness of Nazi occupation - whereas Solondz' movie is born out of what - his own experience of the hellishness of New Jersey? Yet it's Rossellini, contemplating war, Nazism, urban devastation, and completely destroyed lives, who gives a hopeful portrait of the human spirit, whereas Solondz can only peddle the same old tired misanthropy. I know which I prefer... M |
|
|
|
Post by Mary on May 11, 2005 12:19:59 GMT -5
Oh man, I knew the circumstances of the filming of Rome: Open City were insanely difficult, but it's even more amazing than I thought - reading up about it on imdb, I've just learned that the movie was actually filmed on scraps of film that were abandoned by fleeing German soldiers leaving the city at the very end of the war. Fucking amazing piece of work, captures an experience that Americans have, thankfully, never really had - all the horror and bitterness and desperation of occupation - not to mention the heroism it provokes. Not to be missed!!!
Cheers,
M
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 11, 2005 14:42:21 GMT -5
A lot of Rossellini's work, including Rome: Open City, was featured in Martin Scorsese's excellent 4-hour documentary on influential Italian films, My Journey To Italy. Like his other doc, A Personal Journey through American Movies, it made me realize just how much I still need to see.
The town I just moved to (where I finished college) has a great library with a fantastic DVD collection, including an impressive foreign film section. One can only rent 3 items on the first day of membership so I took some titles I haven't seen yet, except for one: Powell & Pressburger's The Red Shoes, Kon Ichikawa's Tokyo Olympiad and Jean-Pierre Melville's Le Cercle Rouge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on May 11, 2005 15:00:18 GMT -5
"If you're the sort of person who feels all transgressive just by sitting through a movie that presents a rogues gallery of monstrous human beings doing monstrously offensive things, then by all means, go see Palindromes and pat yourself on the back for being so superior to all the moralistic hypocrites in the movie. If, on the other hand, you're the sort of person who appreciates moral complexity in art, and likes multi-dimensional renderings of human bengs in all their confused inner turmoil, then Palindromes is every bit the dumbshit equivalent of Father Knows Best minus the camp value - stay the fuck away." - mary "Whatever am I to do if I don't fit into either of these [bleak] categories, pray tell. Perhaps I will see the new Solondz movie without packing any baggage into the theater. *shrugz*" -thorny " I'm not really sure what's so "bleak" about appreciating moral complexity in art, or why that qualifies as "baggage" (??) but whatever. Mostly the movie was BORING because Solondz is perhaps the single most predictable director in the world today, and he gives you such paper-thin caricatures that you can't give a shit about any of them. I read some review that said "Solondz is like the Michael Bay of pessimism" and it's totally true.
btw - just to be clear - I don't necessarily go to movies like Die Hard or Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure expecting to be presented some kind of penetrating tableau of human emotions. Obviously there's a place for pure blowing-shit-up popcorn movie fun and stupid-humor fun at the movies and I'm all for both of them. But Solondz wants to be an artist who "has something to say" - he wants to be a serious satirist - and if you're trying to make a serious social commentary, then I do expect more than just junior high school nihilism. The movie was the cinematic equivalent of a 12 year kid wearing a t-shirt that says "FUCK EVERYTHING" on it. Sure, on some level I can appreciate the sentiment and I think everyone should go through their "fuck everything" stage at some point in their life, but Solondz is really a bit old for that, and 4 movies to make the same point that a t-shirt can make in 2 words seems a wee bit excessive. Is it really that "bleak" of me to want art that is a bit more challenging, that branches out, that portrays more than just one emotion?" - mary I apologize for coming across flippantly when I shrugged and suggested perhaps I'd see the new Solondz flick without "baggage". That did come across rather crassly, and that is why I am apologizing. Number one Mary, you presented this dialectic which I merely felt to not really be that all-inclusive, when you suggested that " If you're the sort of person who feels all transgressive just by sitting through a movie that presents a rogues gallery of monstrous human beings doing monstrously offensive things, then by all means, go see Palindromes and pat yourself on the back for being so superior to all the moralistic hypocrites in the movie. If, on the other hand, you're the sort of person who appreciates moral complexity in art, and likes multi-dimensional renderings of human bengs in all their confused inner turmoil, then Palindromes is every bit the dumbshit equivalent of Father Knows Best minus the camp value - stay the fuck away." In short, I feel that is extremely "black & white" -- because namely, I certainly do NOT relate to the 1st category you offer; and although I'd like to think I might qualify for the second -- I simply wasn't convinced that the movie sucking would apply to me (despite appreciating moral complexities in art and liking multi-dimensional renderings of human beings in all their confused inner turmoil). As for my implication that you were somehow being "bleak" and/or bringing "baggage" into the theater with you, well as for the "bleakness" all I meant was the DIALECTIC of being presented with those 2 facets of character, being rather black&white, is what I found bleak . . . but I was only making an observation, not intending an outright attack. Same thing for the "baggage" observation -- please pardon me for coming across edgy or hostile Mary, because I was only suggesting that maybe someone could actually enjoy the Todd Solondz' new movie if they just sat down and watched a story unfold without so much as caring one whit for anything "deep" or under the surface of the events unfolding. Kinda like the "Napolean Dynamite" phenom -- I can't recall offhand whether you're a supporter or detractor of that movie -- but I thought of it because I most certainly enjoyed the light hearted "shallowness" of that movie thoroughly. All I am suggesting is that perhaps "Palindromes" could be enjoyed on a level analogous to that. Perhaps it was only meant to be "surface deep". You say the movie was BORING and also quote a reviewer who suggests Solondz is the "Michael Bay of pessimism"; that's fine and all . . . but I can't say I would tend to swallow that hook line & sinker, seeing as how the man has made two thoroughly enjoyable movies prior to this, which I admired. I guess I'm just saying you haven't convinced me that Solondz is just stuck at the junior high level of nihilism -- I'm not even certain that Solondz himself would agree he "has something to say" in the vein of a serious satirist, although it seems a safe enough assumption. As for his having made 4 films that succeed in making the same point a T-shirt could in 2 words -- I hope you'll pardon me for being taken somewhat aback by that rash bit of generalizing -- I understand your dislike of the movie is somewhat heated. In closing, I only meant to suggest that although I appreciate your candor in warning us about this new Solondz flick -- I figure I'll have to go find out the hard way, out of respect for Solondz catalogue thus far. But thanks for the warning -- I guess that's the main thing. I hear ya loud and clear! "Stay Away" from PALINDROMES. I'm just saying . . . that maybe . . . holds forefinger & thumbtip together very closely ... just maybe you've over-analyzed this movie a wee lil tad too much . . . thas all I'm saying with all due respect. I will certainly report back here after seeing it so we can find out if I ended up being in agreement with you more or less, or if I thought it was "all that & a ball of wax".  |
|
|
|
Post by Weeping_Guitar on May 11, 2005 18:52:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by pattentank24 on May 14, 2005 7:44:21 GMT -5
That’s cool. What kind of station are you on? I absolutely don’t know what I would do without my morning show. I love them. 680 The Fan Atlanta's Sportstalk Station Hangtime 10am - 1pm (Eastern) I produce the show (I'm on the air about 85% of the show) |
|
|
|
Post by Ampage on May 16, 2005 7:43:37 GMT -5
Watched “Sideways” this weekend. It was good, not great. I don’t really understand all the hype. I do know that I almost threw up when the naked guy was chasing whatshisface.
6/10 Amps
|
|
only long hours sometimes on production work
