Friday, June 02, 2006

Both "the Davinci Code" and "X3: the Last Stand" have now been ingested by me. I feel all caught up with pop culture now. I haven't gotten around to seeing movie version of Dan Brown's book but I'm sure I will when it comes out on video. Books are always better than their movie adaptation anyway. I only know one person who went to see the movie and they haven't read the book yet. Of course, getting to attend an advance screening for free is a pretty good reason to see almost any movie.

I thought the book was alright. It was enough to hold my interest for its 500-page length although it isn't really my type of genre to start with. I think it would have kept me more interested had I perhaps gotten a hold of the illustrated version so I could see the images of the paintings that were referenced in the novel. A few of the paintings I had a vague image of floating in my head while most of the others I'm not sure if I've even heard of before, like the "Madonna of the Rocks" one. After finishing the book I had to look up the art online. It was an interesting novel and while I don't find it hard to believe that it is all fiction, I can see why the Catholic church is having a hissy fit over the popularity of the movie. I mean, if something was released about me saying that I was a tyrant who murdered people to keep evidence of my demise under wraps, I'd be a little ticked too, even if that something claimed to be fiction.

"X-Men 3" is confusing for me. I can't decide whether I liked it or not. I read a few reviews after seeing it and one reviewer wrote something I agree with. He said the parts of the movie were better than the whole. There were some scenes/storylines that were really good but when you smushed everything together into a two-hour film you start to lose a lot of the good stuff. I think it was too much information in too short a time. All these new mutants were introduced, like Angel (pre-Archangel), and then not really mentioned ever again. Also my darling Nightcrawler was nowhere to be seen even though if you had watched "X2" then you'd know that the movie ended with no hint of him leaving Professor X and his team. After doing a little searching I found out that you'll have to play "X-Men: the Official Game" in order to find out what happened to him.

Now, onto more ranting about the movie but this next paragraph may include spoilers. You have been warned!

Prior to X3 being filmed it was rumoured that the third movie was going to be the last installment of X-Men on the big screen. Now it seems that both Hugh Jackman and Sir Ian McKellen are hinting at a fourth movie. There is supposed to be a Wolverine prequel that will be filmed though. How exactly is a fourth movie supposed to be created when the writers went and killed everybody? Jean is dead, Cyclops is allegedly dead, Xavier is being resurrected by Moira somehow, pretty much all the Brotherhood mutants are gone, and Rogue, Magneto and all the other unnamed mutants who got "The Cure" possibly have no powers left (note: "possibly" not "probably"). I know the comics are laced with metaphors like mutant = homosexual with the whole "cure" thing but I am ignoring that for now.

If you're gonna start on the whole "Phoenix Saga" bit then either do it right or find a new storyline. Jean doesn't have a split personality thing going on just because Xavier had to rein in her power. Jean was corrupted by an outside force, but she chose to assume that power in order to attempt a greater good. This storyline is very well known by X-Men fans so why did the movie people try to take only a fraction of it and twist it into something they could fit into a two hour film? Was it because they didn't want to turn an action movie into a sci-fi movie? They should have picked a different plotline then. Because of the way Dark Jean is done in the movie, she cannot come back as she did in the comic books. It makes me want to hit my head against the desk repeatedly. Also, why is Jean mentioned as an Omega-level mutant but Iceman is not?

Also, that Leech kid who can get rid of mutant's powers has got to have his power's effects re-written into the movie. If all his power does (supposedly) is eliminate mutant powers then why does Hank McCoy's hand turn human in his presence? Being big, blue, and furry is not one of Hank's powers. His power lies in his superhuman strength and agility, not in his looks. As for Juggernaut, he is not a mutant. He acquired his juggernaut power through the energy of an ancient gem in a lost temple, the mystical energy of Cyttorak. Because his power is not a mutant ability, film Leech should have had no effect on him whatsoever. What isn't mentioned in the movie is that Leech has the ability to dampen (not eliminate) power "in other living beings with superhuman abilities, mutant or otherwise." And why did the filmmakers make Leech look human? He shouldn't.

Yeah, I'm really picky. If you're going to attempt something you might as well get it right. I do have more ranting to do but I think three paragraphs is enough.
/X3 spoilers

And that's enough for today...

*stupid link of the day* Derek Abbott's Animal Noise Page: ever wondered how the different animal sounds are translated by humans in different languages? JeN's mind ejaculated @ 11:47 a.m. | | permalink