Sat, Jun. 3rd, 2006, 03:25 am
Is X-men 3: the Last Stand even worth the discussion?? Sat, Jun. 3rd, 2006 04:52 pm (UTC)
So, does that mean the Angel was actually a gayman coming out to his father? Sat, Jun. 3rd, 2006 11:55 pm (UTC)
I saw an interview where someone said that the movie was full of the theme of being an outcast which is just a stupid theme to rely on in x-men because it's the most obvious one. Still I don't think the movie was as bad as it could of been. I really enjoyed myself the first time I saw it and it went downhill the second time when I could really look at it closely. Anyway that's my ideas on the flick. Sorry for bad spelling/grammer...no real time to check this over right yet. Sun, Jun. 4th, 2006 11:32 am (UTC)
I think the theme is there, but just touched upon. Bryan Singer brought it right to the forefront in the first two, and Brett Ratner simply acknowledged it, made a few remarks about it, and then moved on to moving bridges and blowing up cars. The "cure" in X-Men 3 doesn't represent abortion, but still the gay and racial themes of the comics and previous movies, that anyone who isn't "normal" (which was white and straight in the olden days) can be cured. There's a reason why it's Storm who says "There's no reason for any of us to be cured." A fine movie, and probably the best it could have been under Ratner's direction. -Harvey Tue, Jun. 6th, 2006 03:34 pm (UTC)
What is so great about Bryan Singer's first installment of the series, and inversely, what is so bad about Brett Ratner's first(and last)? It seems like people are hating a guy's name. |
|