Xmen First Class (Def Worth seeing!)

[talonhawk]

Ok well I just got done seeing the new Xmen movie tonight and I enjoyed that it was over 2 hours long, visual effects, great story, was good to see how everything fell in place. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as it was, I wasn't expecting it to be different from the other xmen movies, but it was and it turned out great. There was one costume or character I thought was rather on the cheesy side but other then that great movie. If anyone else seen it I would love to know what you thought of it.

Waiting for the cookepuss review

[Elmo]

so gonna watch this now
:

[cookepuss]

Waiting for the cookepuss review

Gonna have to wait a bit longer. Even though I have a free ticket, I had family over this weekend so I couldn't make it out to the movies. I'll probably take it in as a double feature with Green Lantern.

What I will say is this: I'm not tied to comic continuity. I see movie continuity as a totally different entity. I do wish that FOX would've let Vaughn do a legitimate reboot instead, something more faithful to what Lee & Kirby envisioned almost 50 years ago. Still, until FOX loses the license and it reverts back to Marvel/Disney, it's FOX's show - for better or worse.

I am definitely looking forward to it whatever Vaughn has done with FC though. I loved what he did with Kick-Ass. He really has a knack for the genre. With the exception of guys like Roger Ebert, who even panned Thor, I've heard only good things about this movie.


Now for the bad news....


Even though its along the lines of what FOX execs projected, First Class really hasn't opened so well. The early tally puts it at only $56M for the weekend. Not too bad until you put it into perspective.

A $56M opener puts FC $10M lower than Thor's $66M. $56M also puts it at almost 1/2 of Ratner's pitifully rated X3, which opened at $102M. First Class' $56M opener puts it just barely above 2000's original X-Men, which opened at $54.5M. HOWEVER..... Given adjusted ticket prices, the original X-Men's $54.5 would now actually be $79M.

Vaughn's First Class may bet getting excellent reviews, but it'll probably be lowest earning X-Men flick of them all.

This is the sort of opener that you grudgingly accept for a first movie, as there's no built-in audience. However, First Class is the 5th X-Men related movie from FOX. $56M doesn't look so hot when you factor in that X-Men: First Class cost $160M to make, originally reported as $140M. That's NOT including a marketing budget. Box Office Mojo suggests that, at most, First Class will only earn $162M domestically. Maybe closer to $141M by the time it gets yanked from theaters.

Again, counting adjusted ticket prices and inflation, the X-Men franchise is trending downward. FC is the 5th X-Men movie under FOX's control. I doubt that a 6th would be a smart gamble for them. I mean, they COULD make a 6th X-Men if they wanted, but they'd have to cut the budget, trim the cast size, and scale back the VFX sequences. Worst yet, they even could opt for limited release followed by a quick direct-to-DVD approach.

Personally, I think that this might be the end of the franchise at FOX.

Studios usually project "safe" numbers so that they don't lose face when it performs lower and look like heroes when it actually performs better. In this case, First Class performed as expected, which might not really be a good thing. First Class' cost to take ratio looks to possibly mirror that of the Hulk movies. That franchise is just about dead. If FOX follows Universal's lead, things don't look too bright for an uncompromised X-Men sequel. After all, this is still a business.

A $56M opener for a $160M movie is pretty weak. The movie won't have time to recover since Super 8 opens this weekend and Green Lantern opens the next. First Class is gonna get hammered. Hard.

This might well be the end of the line, imo. X-Men: Last Class ... At least at FOX or at least until they're at risk of losing the license.

Beyond all of this, I'm looking forward to what Marvel/Disney might do with the X-Men franchise on TV. I'd love to see them put together a "New Mutants" live action TV series. Teen drama. Fairly straightforward and budget friendly powers. It could be Marvel's Smallville if they wanted. I know that X-franchise producer Lauren Schuler-Donner confirmed it for a film release less than 2 years ago. However, with First Class doing less than stellar earnings, New Mutants just might jump over to the small screen instead. At least that's my hope.

[Beartastic]

Only you, Cooke, could write that much about a movie you haven't even seen :lol:

[womball]

Best x-men movie to date. Even had a decent theme song.

[Canti_Cooly]

You may be right Cooke... fox will wait till right before the license goes back to Marvel/Disney than start making a new movie. Though i think its anything "X" related they keep the movie rights. So even if there is never another "XMEN" movie they will prolly make another wolverine and than there is the Deadpool and what have you.

I saw this and hope it does better because it deserves to be seen. In my opinion best of the Xmen movies. Magneto was perfectly cast as well as Shaw and Prof X.

Cant wait to hear your full review Cooke. And in case i forget to mention it Your awesome Man.

[Canti_Cooly]

Best x-men movie to date. Even had a decent theme song.

Did you recognize the music. It was kinda reminiscent of the old 90's show. :thumb:

[cookepuss]

Well, I didn't write about the movie per se. I wrote about the franchise and its iffy future.

It's rare that you see so many entries in a major franchise come from one studio. It's even more rare for later entries to be profitable. They may even be excellent. However, being so late to the party, they end up earning so little money, relatively, that they're often the last in the series. On top of that, audiences begin to tire of the series that it has to be put on ice for years.

Take 1994's "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" for example. The movie cost $14M to make. It made almost $20M worldwid, not including home video. By all accounts, the movie was a success. To boot, the movie was actually one of the better, more memorable entries in the series. Unfortunately, being the 7th, it was also the last. It wouldn't be until 2003 that we'd see Freddy again in the "Freddy VS Jason" mashup. It wouldn't be until 2010 that the series would get (pathetically) rebooted.

The original 1984 Elm Street cost $1.8M to make and raked in $25.5M at the box office. Obviously, that's a massive profit. So much more than the $20M off a $14M budget. So much so that it built a nothing studio into one that'd make massive hits and even eventually put out the LOTR trilogy.

Now, take a look at the X-Men movies. Let's forget inflation for a moment.

The 2000 X-Men movie cost $75M to make. It raked in about $155M domestically. More than double what it cost to make. Cha-ching! Apart from the 90s cartoon and a few games, there was almost no general public awareness of the franchise.

Flash forward to 2011's X-Men:First Class. As a happy medium between the projections, let's assume that makes $150 domestically. That's still well below the $160M production budget and not including marketing. Compared to the 2000 movie, you can argue that First Class pretty much tanked. Especially when you factor in inflation and adjusted ticket sales.

First Class suffers from being a late entry in the series. Financially, it'll make all it up in the global market and might turn a nice profit in home market and from cable PPV deals. Still, it looks a little grim for the series. First Class tracks to make even less than X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Again, I'm not writing on the quality of the movie. I'm just talking about money. Although I'm overjoyed by the amount of critical praise it has received, I'll wait until I see it.

I'm sure that FOX has the key players locked into sensible, sequel friendly contracts. I just wonder, based on what FC ultimately makes, how this might affect everybody else. It could really impact a 6th flick on some key levels or force them to approach it from a different angle.

Let's also not forget the state of the economy. That could play a big factor in the greenlighting or quality/budget of a 6th. Plus, FOX had previously stated an interest in making a proper X4, as recently as 6 months ago.

[cookepuss]

You may be right Cooke... fox will wait till right before the license goes back to Marvel/Disney than start making a new movie.

Yeah. That's a scary thought. That's what led to Roger Corman making the unreleased Fantastic Four movie in the 90s. (Really, REALLY bad if you've ever seen the bootleg.) Really bad things can happen to a franchise when the studio is only focused keeping the license.

Though i think its anything "X" related they keep the movie rights. So even if there is never another "XMEN" movie they will prolly make another wolverine and than there is the Deadpool and what have you.

I don't think that FOX has the entire X-family licensed. They've certainly got key properties and "core" characters. I know for sure that they have X-Men, Magneto, Wolverine, Deadpool, New Mutants, and any character who has appeared in the franchise thus far.

However, I'm not 100% positive that they hold all of the film rights to the fringe characters or titles. A good example would be Namor the Submariner. He's been a member of the X-Men for about 2 years now. He's also got a book titled, "Namor the First Mutant" out on shelves. I'm almost certain that FOX doesn't have him and can't use him. I think that Universal has his rights.

Regardless, Marvel/Disney could still do stuff with the characters on the small screen. I'm 90% sure that FOX doesn't have the TV rights. Joe Quesada has already stated that there's some live action mutant stuff on the horizon. It'd just have to exist apart from the film continuity and may actually resemble the comic one even more.

Magneto was perfectly cast as well as Shaw and Prof X.

Kevin Bacon is my only major misgiving about the casting here. Again, I haven't seen the movie yet so I won't judge. I'm sure that he fits the movie version perfectly. However, if we're talking about the comic version of Sebastian Shaw then Bacon is so very far off the mark. IMO, his casting isn't as universally, across the board perfect as the likes of a Jackman or Stewart. Again, I'm sure he fits the movie version though.

And in case i forget to mention it Your awesome Man.

Stroking my ego will get you everywhere.

[cookepuss]

Did you recognize the music. It was kinda reminiscent of the old 90's show. :thumb:

Really? I know that they did some version of the 90s theme for the international trailer. I was sort of bummed that they didn't use it in the domestic trailer. If they put that version in the movie... awesome. :thumb:

[Beartastic]

David Hayter was one of the writers on the first two X-Men movies. You know, the voice of Solid Snake? And then he didn't write for the third X-Men movie and it was terrible. Anyone who looks this boss is doing something right.

I haven't seen First Class yet (really looking forward to it, but I'm on crunch three more weeks) but I think the franchise should return to David Hayter.

[cookepuss]

Don't overestimate David Hayter's writing skills. First off, he's got 4 writing credits to his name. Among those, there's enough cause to feel that he's not the "holy grail" of comic book movie writers.

His first major writing credit is X-Men (2000). In fact, he is the only credited writer. However, that's not nearly close to the truth. That first film passed through more hands than a drunken sorority girl. Hayter's role was more of "cleanup man" than actual writer on that first movie. That's why you can still make out a few of Joss Whedon's one-liners. Hayter was credited mostly because he was there. He just acted as more of a seamstress, stitching together parts of other people's drafts and smoothing out the wrinkles. Watch the first X-Men trailer and compare it to the final film. He was tweaking the dialog til the very end.

In spite of his intervention, from Whedon to DeSanto to Singer, that script did come from a bazillion different sources. I remember that there was some minor controversy at the time, regarding Hayter's credit and the exclusion of the other writers. Everybody just left well enough alone and nothing more became of it though.

I'm not even sure that he did such a great job on that first X-Men either. For the time, it was a fantastic movie. However, it has not aged so well. It feels tentative, disjointed, and even rushed in places.

After X-Men, Hayter is credited for writing Scorpion King, X2, and Watchmen. However, like the first X-Men, he had many co-writers propping him up. Unlike the first X-Men, some of them managed to get equal credit. Of those remaining 3 movies, the quality is spotty. X2 has aged a bit, but still stands as a superior sequel. Scorpion King is a hot mess. Watchmen is excellent in places and self-indulgent garbage in others.

When it comes down to it, Hayter is a co-writer first and foremost. I'm not so sure that he could stand on his own two feet as the sole writer. Even acting in concert with others, I don't feel that he's got a strong enough voice where he could stand out over his co-writers. There's nothing distinctly David Hayter to his work. Looking at his body of work, one also has to wonder if he's covering up his co-writers' flaws or whether they're covering his.

I think that a lot of fanboy love comes Hayter's way because of the MGS thing and because of the films' popularity. I don't necessarily feel that it's all deserved once you know what he's all about. I'm no saying that he's as low as a Uwe Boll, but he's still a long way off from being a Goyer, Nolan, or any of the other leaders in this genre.

(At least those movies had a writer, unlike Iron Man. According to Jeff Bridges, they had a detailed outline, but no actual script. Again, according to Bridges, much of the dialog was worked up in rehearsals. Iron Man was highly improvised.)

That's just my opinion though.

[crazyfool]

yea I agree, if you watch the making of you always see hayter with another 2-3 writers sitting with him. The others probably didnt want to be credited after that cringeworthy line from storm in the first film. For a long time I wasnt a big fan of the first film, the characters timelines were all screwed up, HUGE jackman was 18 feet tall, rogue was 12, magneto was super camp, super old and in a super corset? But it wasnt long before I loved it haha X2 was great but could have been wolverine the movie lol, Love when they break into the mansion and wolverine stabs everyone as they disturbed his beer drinking time. X3 pissed me off, just seemed like they ran out of things to do and so started killing people off for dramatic effect and in turn ruining future sequels so Im not surprised they have started it from the beginning. I would love to see a sentinel story or phalanx or the awesome Onslaught saga or even apocalypse storyline. wolverine film was a bit poo for me too, gambit was one of my favourite characters but is apparently a massive douche!!!!! I cant wait to see First class though, Fassbenders a great actor and the story between erik and xavier should be a gooden if they handle it right. Im a massive magneto fan so its gonna be great

downfall of the xmen movies for me was when Bryan singer left people need to watch the guyver movie haha

[Gyorkland]

Must trailers look better than the actual movies but with this one I just know its going to be awesome I was gonna go yesterday but it was sold out, but I will watch it before the week ends

[JackNelson]

I saw it in the afternoon today.. it was what I expected as well, there are some parts where it tries way too hard to tie in with minor events that take place in the future (like all prequels do really) but aside from that the story stays interesting. X2 will remain my favorite but this is a close second.

[cookepuss]

yea I agree, if you watch the making of you always see hayter with another 2-3 writers sitting with him.

That 2 or 3 is not including the writers that didn't sit in either.

The others probably didnt want to be credited after that cringeworthy line from storm in the first film.

That had nothing to do with it. AFAIK, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) is the one that determines screen credits. That's why you might see people credited for "story by" instead of "screenplay by" and such. They've got guidelines to figure out who gets credited how, but they don't always make sense and writers often get shortchanged or simply left out.

Obviously, a writer can petition or sue to have their name removed. Stephen King successfully did this for "Lawnmower Man" and tried to for "The Shining" iirc. Screenwriters turned a short story about a wood god with a possessed lawnmower into the story about a mildly retarded guy and virtual reality. "Lawnmower Man" the movie looked nothing like the story.

Likewise, King sued to have his name removed from "The Shining" because Kubrick also changed way too much. The book was much more subtle. No "Here's Johnny!" bs either. It was more about a haunted hotel, an alcoholic father, and a psychic kid than a guy who goes nuts and tries to butcher his family. Actually, that element was only a small part of the story. Watch the TV mini-series of "The Shining" to see how much they do differ. Kubrick left out characters and key subplots as he saw fit. He also downplayed a number of key character points. What was in the 2hr movie didn't totally resemble what King envisioned for what ultimately became a 4.5 hour mini. All I think that Stephen King accomplished was to have the title changed to "Stanley Kubrick's The Shining" instead of "Stephen King's The Shining".

Credits are tricky. So many people work on films and so many get uncredited. Some, like comedian Mel Brooks ("Spaceballs") intentionally have their names left off the credits when they want the movie to be taken seriously, as he did with the 1986 remake of "The Fly". Others have their names added on when they want good, but small films to get attention, as Brad Pitt did for "Kick-Ass".

BTW, that Storm line? One of the 2 or 3 remaining lines from Joss Whedon's script. I'm sure that it probably came off funnier in his version, but I agree that it did sound very stupid here. I remember going to the midnight showing when the movie came out 11 years ago. I was so amped to see that movie. Apparently, not amped enough to not groan at that line though. Still, I happily accepted it since Storm had just kinda, sorta flown out of that elevator shaft a minute earlier. (God, Storm/Halle sucked in that movie. :lol: )

HUGE jackman was 18 feet tall, rogue was 12, magneto was super camp, super old and in a super corset?

Magneto was pretty much fine. Without going into the whole bit about him being de-aged to a younger man, as they did in the comics, they had to portray him as a guy bordering on 70. After all, the movie came out in 2000 and Magneto's origin was tied to the Holocaust in WW2, which ended in 1945.

Rogue wasn't so bad, but I do feel that they used her as a substitute for Kitty Pryde. Rogue ended up being more of a convenient plot device in that film and was never really handled so faithfully since. On top of that, they did include Kitty in all 3 films - each time with a different actress and each time with little to no story.

Wolverine.... Jackman is the definitive film Wolverine, but he's also totally not the comic version. I don't mind him being tall because where the hell are you going to find a 5'3" bodybuilder who can also act well? You're really not. I just don't think that Wolverine in the movies has ever been written to be as much of a badass as he is in the comics. For one thing, Wolverine gets his ass kicked way too often in the movies. He practically spends half his time on his back in the first one. In the comics, he's much more of an angry loner with a f*** you attitude. In the movies, he's more cage fighter badass instead of Hell's Angel, kill you over the last beer, badass. They made him too much of a wuss in the movies. Still, with Jackman, there's not much to complain about with his Wolverine.

My only real complaints for that first movie were Storm, Sabretooth, & Cyclops. Poor James Marsden never got jack to do in any of the movies. Cyclops got neutered as much as Wolverine. Sabretooh was just horribly miscast, underused, and hampered by cheap looking prosthetic nails. Storm.... Halle just can't act. She kept dropping the accent in that movie. She didn't know to play a scene with emotion either. X-Men didn't have to be Shakespeare, but she certainly didn't have to phone it in either.

X2 was great but could have been wolverine the movie lol,

The whole series, 1-3, was pretty much a Wolverine movie. The writers didn't know how to balance the large casts. It was nice that they gave us more Wolverine doing Wolverine stuff in X2, but everybody else suffered.

downfall of the xmen movies for me was when Bryan singer left

I've got mixed emotions about this. Singer's body of work is overrated in some respects. Yes, he did Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil, but he's also the same guy who went on to do stuff like Superman Returns and Valkyrie. Everybody complains about Ratner's X3. They all suggest that Singer would've done a better job. However, Singer left X-Men to do Superman with Brandon Routh and that movie turned out to be an utter failure. So much so that Routh never got a second shot at the tights and the studio would rather reboot than do another sequel.

I'm not saying that Ratner's X3 was high art. Frankly, it had no plot. What passed for a plot were bits and pieces of other great stories barely stitched together into something a bit less than the sum of its parts. Still, in terms of pure comic book action, Ratner delivered way more than Singer. Singer always promised these big fights and teased at how characters could fly, but that's all it was - a tease. Ratner didn't get everything right and often disrespected a few characters. However, as a mindless summer popcorn flick, it wasn't too bad. IMO, there's a difference between a good movie and a fun movie. X3 was a lot of fun, but it just wasn't too good. Likewise, X1 was pretty good, but not a whole lot of fun. X2 was that decent balance between the two.

[Canti_Cooly]

Once again Cooke its amazing how much you can write lol. Love your passion man. and your post are not just rants but chock full of information. Xmen has always been my favorite set of marvel books maybe because they were the first ones i read lol.

[cookepuss]

Being such a hot day today, there was no way I was going to be cooped up and surrounded by hot PCs. Thankfully, that provided me with ample excuse to go out to the movies. Having just seen XFC, I can tell you that it is not only the best of the X-Men series, but also stands as possibly the richest character-based movie to come from Marvel's library.

Going in, I was afraid that all of the pre-release hype would have ruined the movie for me. After all, FOX was releasing clip after clip in the weeks prior. I'm happy to say that FOX didn't even come close to giving it all up. There are still tons of surprises and intimate character moments to be had. XFC is a fun, smart movie the likes of which FOX has not done in a while. Whether you're a comic fan or not, XFC is a must see.

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!!!


STILL WITH ME?


Having seen the movie now, I can understand why some people are afraid to call it either a prequel or a reboot. Frankly, the movie is both, yet neither. On the one hand, Matthew Vaughn lovingly recreates the concentration camp scene from Bryan Singer's original 2000 X-Men flick. That would lead you to assume that this is indeed a prequel. At the same time, because the film ends off with Erik becoming Magneto, Vaughn contradicts and even negates the existence of X-Men 3.

Further blurring that line between reboot and prequel is the now redefined role of Mystique. On the one hand, she becomes the consort to Magneto that we've come to expect thanks to X1-X3. On the other hand, the insistance that Raven had a prior (long term) relationship with Xavier when none had even remotely existed in Singer's films suggests that this is also somewhat of a reboot too.

On top of that, Vaughn retcons Moira McTaggert's place in the X-universe. In 2006's X3, Moira is shown to be relatively young Scottish woman and a scientist. In XFC, she's now (apparently) American, a federal agent, and still young, but the year is now 1962. She'd have to be about 64 in X3, which further points to this being a reboot of sorts.

So, instead of calling this a reboot or a prequel, I'll refer to this as a "do over." XFC is Matthew Vaughn's attempt to create the full on X-Men origin movie that Bryan Singer was too tentative to make. Vaughn playfully pays homage to the elements that Singer established, but doesn't feel forced to conform to the rules or continuity of his world. So, for those of you worried that XFC will be the mutant version of Star Wars Episode I, fear not. X-Men shares much more in common with JJ Abrams' own non-reboot Star Trek than the Phantom Atrocity.

For argument's sake, let's do a quick comparison between Singer's X-Men and Vaughn's.

How are they alike? For one thing, as I already mentioned, Vaughn takes on the ballsy task of duplicating that opening scene shot for shot. I can imagine any number of ways that could have gone wrong, from bad acting to glaring errors in the dupe. Thankfully, Vaughn not only recreates the scene, but also sensibly uses it as a jump off point for an even larger narrative. Vaughn doesn't wholly ditch Singerverse elements like the scaly appearance of Mystique, the telepathy blocking properties of Magneto's helmet, or the.... wait for it.... cameos by familiar characters or actors. I'll get back to that soon enough.

How does this movie differ? Where do I start?

Singer's first X-Men, as I've said many times, felt tentative. Singer, as a director, looked afraid to embrace the quirks of superheroics. Much like Smallville, Singer's X-Men largely obeyed a "no tights, no flights" mentality. Having recently come off of the wonderful, yet underrated Kick-Ass, Matthew Vaughn is no stranger to superheroics. Characters here don brightly colored team uniforms and take flight like fleshy F-16s. Vaughn shows himself to be a proud comic geek and it shows on every frame. Even Magneto's eventual "bad guy" costume closely mimics the Ultimate X-Men version.

Vaughn's X-Men also differs in another, yet even more important regard. Characterization. Strip Singer's films of the wonky comic book antics and you're really not left with much story. You're not really left with much in the way of character development. However, Vaughn's film is uniquely different. Strip away the Cuban Missle Crisis plot and all of the powers and you're still left with a very compelling drama. You're still left with some equally compelling characters too.

At the heart of the movie are two stories. Erik, a Holocaust survivor, is a man with purpose yet no clarity. A part of him died in the camps. Erik is a man hellbent on revenge, seeking justice for the brutal murder of his mother at the hands of a Nazi madman. Throughout the course of the movie, Erik finds a part of his humanity long thought forgotten and that, ultimately, leads him to find greater focus. Granted, that renewed clarity is misdirected, but Erik is a man reborn.

Then there's Charles. He's a man of privilege. He's the prototypical party boy. As far back as a child, he's got this immediate connection to a larger world, thanks to the child Raven. Still, he abuses his powers and his intelligence to pick up women at bars. Charles doesn't have a clear purpose of his own until the feds enter his life and sh** gets real. By the end of the movie, we get an Xavier who more closely resembles the comic version, yet is still unsure of his newfound role of a good shepherd of wayward mutants. By the end, Charles has outgrown much of that party boy outlook and is willing to embrace an even larger world of possibilities.

That's the sort of character growth I never really got from Singer's version of events.

As a period movie, XFC also holds up really well. This new "first class" isn't actually a group of superheroes. They are, in their own way, a group of covert agents, spies. They even fancy themselves as such and that's where we first get the notion of codenames. From Shaw's ship-embedded sub to Hank McCoy's inventions, I can confirm that there is indeed a certain 60s James Bond feel to this movie. This flick oozes style.

Also contributing to this 60s era atmosphere are costumes and the Hellfire Club, which is played off as a fictionalized, sleazier version of the old Playboy Club. And, while the writers do toss in the occasional "groovy", never once does it feel like something out of Austen Powers or Earthworm Jim. It feels wholly natural, thanks in no small part to the wonderful acting.

On the subject of acting, this movie was wonderfully cast.

Its been a long time since Kevin Bacon made you want to slap the holy hell out of him. He's so convincing as an escaped Nazi war criminal that you want to join in with Magneto just so that you can get a turn at beating him up.

Michael Fassbender and James Mcavoy do the impossible. They make you forget about Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart. Instead of standing in their shadows, they make the characters their own. Never once to I fail to believe that these guys will become the future Magneto and Professor X. Their skill is so polished that they can read the phone book and have you on the edge of your seat. They're that good. This is a movie that will do for Fassbender what X1 did for Hugh Jackman. Mark it. Likewise, Mcavoy gets a chance to stretch his legs and give us a character unlike ones he's done in the past. There's no looking at Mcavoy's Xavier and mistaking him for Wanted's Wesley. They feel like two entirely different people and THAT is the hallmark of a good actor.

I was equally impressed by Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique. This movie is as much about Mystique's personal journey as it is Charles and Erik's. Lawrence acquits herself superbly as the shapeshifting temptress. No offense to Rebecca Romijn, but this is why you hire an actual actress and not a supermodel. Lawrence is as hot and can actually act. Second maybe to Xavier, I think that Mystique sees the most actual growth here.

When we first see her, she's a child. She's pretty much stealing from Xavier's kitchen and, apparently, on the run from people who fear her appearance. When we jump ahead into the 1960s, Mystique is a woman who almost hates herself. She wants to pass for normal and almost even wants Charles to love her for who she really is, blue scales and all. By the end, she learns that some people just won't accept her and that loving herself and being proud to be different matters most. That puts her squarely in Magneto's camp, as he knows what it feels like to be persecuted by the intolerant. It's an intelligently written character arc and is a stark contrast to how Hank McCoy (Beast) reacts to his physical differences. McCoy's arc, while less developed, was no less effective.

I only wish that every other character was so well crafted. Alex Summers, brother to future X-Man Cyclops, never really gets a chance to shine as a person. He makes for a cool looking effect, but not much more. Banshee, another spot on casting decision, took flight physically, but never so much as a character. He WAS good for a few laughs and exhilirating ariel sequences, but I sort of wanted to get to know him better. Likewise, not enough was done to flesh out Zoe Kravitz's Angel Salvadore to make me care that she switched sides. And, wasn't it funny, that the only black man in the cast was also the first hero casuality? Poor Darwin. It almost made me chuckle and think back to 1980s horror movies, where people of color are usually the first to die.

Make no mistake, the bad guys are as basically sketched out as the first class team. Azazel, future father of Nightcrawler, gets lots of cool teleporting fight scenes, but he's a fairly 2D sort of character. Same thing with Shaw's henchman Riptide. All flash and no substance. Emma Frost comes off as cold and lifeless, but that works in January Jones' favor since the comic character is as bland - at least the early iteration.

Those are small complaints though, as Erik, Charles, Raven, Hank, and Shaw are all excellently portrayed. They really carry the A and B plots so well that you can overlook the problems with the secondary characters. To me, "First Class" refers more to Xavier's first step into this new world and less about the students themselves.

On the issue of cameos and references, there are some very obvious and some less so. Rebecca Romijn's brief appearance a Mystique was fun to see. Likewise, seeing Hugh Jackman's Wolverine tell Xavier and Erik to "fuck off" had me in stitches. Contrary to what some fanboys would suggest, Jackman's appearance was very much in line with what was established in X2. Remember when Magneto suggested that Xavier was hiding that he knew more about Logan's history than he was letting on? Now it makes sense. X-Men 1 takes place about 15 years after X-Men Origins:Wolverine and this movie takes place maybe 20 years before that. First Class would suggest that Xavier kept tabs on Logan over the years, even though he first refused to join. Wolverine wouldn't remember their first meeting anyway, thanks to being an amnesiac for 15 years.

Of the more subtle references, it was fun to catch what was presumably Storm in that Cerebro montage. It was also fun to hear a reference to the then young William Striker, X2's main villain.

There's a lot of fun stuff in this movie. The way it's bookended is excellent. Xavier starts off trying to save one mutant, Mystique, and ends off trying to save them all, including himself. Erik starts off as a victim of a monster only to become a bit of a monster himself. He's not beyond hope, but he's no longer that poor tortured child.

For those who complain about this not being the actual first class..... Think about this. It's not until the last scenes, after all is said and done, that the name X-Men even pops up. Never once are these kids refered to as X-Men. If anything, they're thought of as government assets. Xavier even suggests that his kids are more G-Men, a common bit of slang for government agent. It's Moira McTaggert who coins the term X-Men and suggests that that's what he calls the students he will recruit. This movie still leaves it open for the first class of true X-Men to also consist of Jean, Scott, Bobby, and Warren. Also, by the time the story starts in the very first issue of the X-Men comic, Xavier had already been training these kids for a few years and Magneto had already gone bad. It's subtle, but the suggestions made in this movie really don't preclude that possibility of having that core 5 of "original" X-Men.

Overall, this isn't just a good X-Men movie. It isn't just a good comic movie. It's a good movie. It does everything that Bryan Singer's X-Men movies wanted to do, but shyed away from. It has every bit as much heart as Spider-Man 2, but with a touch more intelligence. It's not as flashy as Iron Man or Thor, but stands out as being more heavily invested in intimate character development. With or without the fancy schmancy powers, the movie stands out because of the people under these costumes, which it embraces instead of mocks. Unlike Bryan Singer's 1st X-Men which clocked in at a breezy 104 minutes. Vaughn's flick takes its time and comes in at 132 minutes. Yet you still want more.

I'd have to give this flick a B+/A-. It was EASILY the best X-Men film so far and could only be better if we got a few more scenes to flesh out the students and even the henchmen. Still, as a reboot/prequel, First Class is far more JJ Abrams than George Lucas and has a lot going for it.

[sinz]

Saw It yesterday, was pretty cool, better than POTC 4 that's for sure!

Awesome enthusiasm you have for writing cooke, I will have to find some time to read all of that one day.

[Gyorkland]

cookepuss:Nice review man, I just saw it yesterday and I agree pretty much with everything you said and it was a lot man!