Kath and I saw “X-Men II” today and, yes, it’s that rare animal: A sequel better than the original. It’s no longer the “Wolverine and a Buncha Guys” show. This time around, we get a real sense of the true emotional depth and breadth of the Marvel Mutantverse. From the pure “Cabaret”-esque showmanship of Nightcrawler to the ticking timebomb of Pyro, to the sure-to-provoke-cheers cameos of Colossus and Hank McCoy, this one’s got it all.
And more than anything, it has real-world resonance. There are some who have called being a Mutant a metaphor for being gay. Never seemed more convincing a take than when one teen mutant “comes out” to his family. And then, of course, there’s the concept of curtailing freedoms, midnight raids, a police state…all in the name of security. However much it was featured in the first film, it seemed more abstract; now it sends chills down your spine. Unless, of course, you’re one of those who cheers the loss of personal liberty in the name of “security.” Then…well, I’m not sure.
There’s many “little” moments, including a devil-may-care encounter between Mystique and some pursuing soldiers, and–oh yes–Cyclop’s part. Easily the X-Man least served by the script, he disappears…as they said in “Shakespeare in Love”–for the length of a bible. Storm, however, has a better wig and appears to have abandoned the arch delivery of the first film. The way she was talking this time out, she could have sold the “What happens to toads when they’re struck by lightning” line.
Film did have some pacing problems, plus I kept waiting to check in on a group of fugitive mutants led by Colossus. Odd to say that the film seemed long and yet they could have added at least half an hour to it with an entire additional storyline.
Great stuff.
Talk amongst yourselves.
PAD
• 
X-2? Overall very nice indeed. One can tell Singer knew who he was aiming the film at given how often the camera had Mystique in the frame, even if only as background eye candy.
There were a couple of things which bothered me, however. Some were addressed here. A couple of others include …
OK, maybe there were extenuating circumstances why Logan didn’t pick up on Mystique’s scent in the tent. But how the heck could he miss finding the base? OK, it was underground. So what? All that personel and equipment passing through there recently and it left NO TRACES that he could pick up with his enhanced senses? Not bloody likely.
The vastly superior X-jet not being able to lose a couple of F-16s?
Once the psychic restraint device was removed from Xavier, his “world’s most powerful telepath” mind should have had no trouble at all dealing with Jason. Especially when enhanced by Cerebro.
Uh … where did Jeanne’s extra power come from? We know where in the comic. But in the film? Someone here suggested it was the radiation from the device in the first film. But that doesn’t stand up.
1 – everyone should have been affected then.
2 – it was established that the gadget only affected humans, now mutants.
So, overall a very nice effort, definitely could have been another half an hour longer, but there were still a few holes needed plugging.
“only affected humans, now mutants.”
Oops.
“… NOT mutants.”
Did anyone find the Deathstrike/Wolvie battle horribly anti-climactic? I mean, she’s dead (presumably?) and we were never even told that she was Deathstrike. I was expecting a really hug, knock-down, drag-out battle … and it was all those things except huge. I think it was literally about 2 minutes long! I felt a little cheated after the big lead-up in the various previews I’d seen.
Hugh “Wolverine” Jackman said in a recent interview that the Wolverine/Deathstrike had to be trimmed down because of the PG-13 rating.
The upcoming DVD will tell us how much the Wolverine/Deathstrike battle was chopped, I should think.
As for Deathstrike’s healing factor … Things which make you go “Hmmmm…” …
In the comics we KNOW Logan’s been around. Including Japanm years ago. In the movie we also see he’s had military – possibly far-ranging – service dating back how long? We also are told in the movie that the mutant gene is passed on by the father.
Put two and two together and …
GREAT MOVIE. SO GREAT THAT I DON’T MIND THAT THE ENDING WAS COMPLETELY LIFTED FROM STAR TREK 2: THE WRATH OF KAHN. THE JEAN GREY/SPOCK PARALLEL ISN’T TOO HARD TO SEE. THE ODD PART IS THE MOVIE WAS SO GREAT, I DON’T CARE.
“GREAT MOVIE. SO GREAT THAT I DON’T MIND THAT THE ENDING WAS COMPLETELY LIFTED FROM STAR TREK 2: THE WRATH OF KAHN. THE JEAN GREY/SPOCK PARALLEL ISN’T TOO HARD TO SEE. THE ODD PART IS THE MOVIE WAS SO GREAT, I DON’T CARE.”
Yeah, as much as I loved the movie, one of my first thoughts about it was that it was the 2nd Patrick Stewart movie in a row that ripped off the ending of Star Trek 2.
“God loves, Man kills”, Nature laughs,I like that. So I hear that Colosses, Nightcrawler, and Mystique signed on for X3.
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. There was only one nit-pick I really had.
How can they claim the mutant gene passes through the father’s side? I mean, I know it was for comedy’s sake, but still…
The only way the gene could pass through the father’s side is if it was on the Y-chromosome. That would imply that only men could become mutants. Now, if they wanted to say the gene was sex-linked, then it’s on the X-chromosome. Since Bobby’s father is clearly not a mutant, then his mother must be a carrier, which would give her a 50/50 chance of passing it on to her kids – that explains why Bobby’s younger brother is not a mutant.
In sex-linked genetic disorders, the gene is almost always recessive (which must be the case since the mother is also not a mutant). Girls would need a gene on both X-chromosomes in order to become mutants. But for that to happen, that means that every girl mutant must have had a mutant father. That’s obviously not the case.
So, bah on the bad genetic science. Still, that’s probably just the biology nerd in me rearing its ugly head. Otherwise, fantastic film.
Twas said:
**I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. There was only one nit-pick I really had.
How can they claim the mutant gene passes through the father’s side? I mean, I know it was for comedy’s sake, but still…
The only way the gene could pass through the father’s side is if it was on the Y-chromosome. That would imply that only men could become mutants. Now, if they wanted to say the gene was sex-linked, then it’s on the X-chromosome. Since Bobby’s father is clearly not a mutant, then his mother must be a carrier, which would give her a 50/50 chance of passing it on to her kids – that explains why Bobby’s younger brother is not a mutant.
In sex-linked genetic disorders, the gene is almost always recessive (which must be the case since the mother is also not a mutant). Girls would need a gene on both X-chromosomes in order to become mutants. But for that to happen, that means that every girl mutant must have had a mutant father. That’s obviously not the case.
So, bah on the bad genetic science. Still, that’s probably just the biology nerd in me rearing its ugly head. Otherwise, fantastic film. **
I think that it has generally accepted that there was no validity in Pyro’s statement, it was just Pyro being a dìçk.
IMHO anyway.
Girls would need a gene on both X-chromosomes in order to become mutants. But for that to happen, that means that every girl mutant must have had a mutant father. That’s obviously not the case.
Actually in one of the X comics, they stated that there are a lot more mutants than we know about. Not all mutants have special powers. Some of the mutants are just gifted individuals, with exceptionally good abilities in music, math, athletics, etc. That and there are supposed to be mutants who for one reason or another never actually discover their power.
This would explain why you see so many mutants when Prof X does his cerebo search for Nightcrawler.
SPB
That’s a good point, SPB. I didn’t consider that. Still, I wonder about the demographics – if it is sex-linked, there would be a noticeable difference in the percentage of females affected to that of males affected. Since X-Men is typically a comic geared towards men (and no… no, no, no, I do not want to get into that whole male/female what appeals to each sex in comics debate again… I’m sure PAD doesn’t either. Heh), there is naturally going to be a larger focus on the male characters. X-Men has been good about this, from my experience, though – the men and women are all equally well developed and seem fairly well represented. If the number of male mutants and the number of female mutants is 50/50, then it’s not sex-linked.
‘Sides, the fact that each person is affected so differently by their mutation, I imagine it would almost be more likely that different parts of the genome are affected, not just one gene. Ooh, but then you get into a whole issue with increasing amounts of genetic mutation, leading to an increase in the number of genetic “errors” if mutants have kids with mutants – almost like a Muller’s Ratchet effect, but not quite.
Arg. Nevermind. I think I’m going to leave the science out of fiction. It makes my head ache a bit.
‘Sides, the fact that each person is affected so differently by their mutation, I imagine it would almost be more likely that different parts of the genome are affected, not just one gene. Ooh, but then you get into a whole issue with increasing amounts of genetic mutation, leading to an increase in the number of genetic “errors” if mutants have kids with mutants – almost like a Muller’s Ratchet effect, but not quite.
Actually that is about what happens. The first generation mutant mother and father produce children with powers that look like normal humans, alla the X-men. But when two mutants have children, the aberrations are more pronounced like Nightcrawler or the Morlocks from the comic books. They are kinda like the mutants you see on Futurama.
SPB
The first generation mutant mother and father produce children with powers that look like normal humans, alla the X-men. But when two mutants have children, the aberrations are more pronounced like Nightcrawler or the Morlocks from the comic books.
One word: Cable.
Well, when Cable first appeared he had all these muscles that don’t exist on the human body, and a tiny head, and crosshatching everywhere, and generally didn’t resemble a normal human much…
**Yes, there is alas, a stereotype of women as being power-hungry to the point of murder, something that Cruella DeVil in 101 Dalmatians was also based on. And that, alas, is a stereotype that Phoenix is based upon too.
End.**
Well…no. There’s a stereotype of villainous women being power hungry to the point of murder. Then again, there’s a stereotype of villainous men being power hungry to the point of murder.
Avi, I know that everyone reads stories through the prism of their own perceptions. But, really, the prism through which you read the Dark Phoenix storyline seems singularly cracked. The theme of “Dark Phoenix” wasn’t “women are evil.” It was the very old theme of “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” That has nothing to do with females per se. At all.
PAD
Well whatever, thanks for the input, PAD. When I was little, and/or growing up, I could not stand the Grimm fairy tales, which contained some of the most vile depictions of women, and which were written out of ludicrous hatred for women back then by a very prejudiced society. I need look no further than Hansel and Gretel to know what the people whose stories the Brothers Grimm published were like. The same stereotypes later turned up even in 101 Dalmatians, and Disney himself, sadly, was very heavily influenced by the Brothers Grimm.
What can I say, such stereotypes have made so maaaaad as hëll over the years, and I wish that the showbiz industry wouldn’t stoop to using them, or even trying to.
I don’t know if I should be commentating on this, but (giggle) I just couldn’t help but find those three or four people who made a whole fuss over the subject of stereotypes to be SO FUNNY! That Jason, Pack, Alan, and even that Jarissa, who’s probably not even a woman, sure were taking it a bit too seriously. (guffaw) LOL!
I don’t know what to say about the Phoenix, but Avi does have a point when talking about Cruella De Vil, the Brothers Grimm, and even Hansel and Gretel’s use of stereotypes. Those so-called “folk tales” were some of the worst things I experienced years ago, and I’m not about to give them to my 7-y-o to read. Utter crap.
As for the Phoenix, I must admit that I didn’t ever consider the possibility that that could’ve been a stereotypical portrayal of a woman as a killer when I first read it back in 1979, but after two decades, I can’t say I think much of it now. And big deal if they retconned it years later, I didn’t care.
But in any case, those stand-up comedians here who stooped to needless insults are so hilarious! (chuckle) Guys, you don’t have any idea how foolish you’re making yourself look by exaggerating the whole argument and even turning to insults. And no, as said in some of the following threads, this site’s not your property any more than it is mine, so you pretty much committed the error of abuse, oh dear! Now aren’t you sorry you took to arguing in the first place?
But hey, keep it up! You could all make a good sketch on SNL with the way you carried on there. (guffaw) Congratties, kiddies!