I did something that I haven’t done in a long time: I went to a movie theater and saw a new movie. Heck, it wasn’t even free.
What would inspire Chad to pay $7.50 to see a movie? X-Men 3, of course. The first one was okay and the second one was one of the best superhero films I’ve seen. I was leery of the third one, however, for it wasn’t directed by Bryan Singer. Nope, he left to go do something silly like Superman Returns (which I’m looking forward to, as well).
I don’t even want to talk about the merits or detriments of the film, however. Let’s say that it is decent—not inspired and full of more holes than my pair of leftover 1980s jeans.
What I find compelling is the resonance of these films according to when they are released. In an earlier blog entry called “Terrorism Lessons from the Movies,” I discussed how X-Men 2 became a film about heroes labeled as terrorists and an evil military industry trying to convince the world to go to war with these terrorists for its own selfish reasons. How interesting that the film is then released in March 2003, right as the US is invading Iraq.
Here, the dichotomy isn’t between the terrorists and non-terrorists, but becomes a question of innate properties. In fact, X-Men 3 captures the intent of the original X-Men series, which began in 1963, when the civil rights movement was gaining momentum. The X-Men are mutants, meaning that they are somehow genetically different from all “normal” people. Some mutants have super powers, but some are just physically different. They’re seen as inferior because they are different, even though they have done nothing to choose their difference. As X-3 points out, there are lots of mutants that aren’t even “out of the closet,” so to speak. These mutants want to be like everyone else, and for the most part, they fit in.
In X-3, a company releases a cure for being different. Mutants can be permanently cured if they take a serum. This unleashes some mutant outrage, too, because many mutants don’t think there’s anything wrong with being mutants; they’re different, yes, but they’re also gifted. There are protests on both sides, and one group of mutants (Magneto, et al.) want to destroy all of the normal people and establish their own rule. The X-Men side doesn’t agree with the dichotomy of normal/mutant, but they don’t think violence is the answer—diplomacy is.
And when is this movie released? When the immigration question is at its height. Racism, immigration, reaction, and questions of belonging are all tied up here. In fact, it’s the most compelling thing about X-Men 3.
Grade for X-Men: The Last Stand: 5
2 comments:
I'm surprised that you even thought it was decent! I went midnight opening night, and I was expecting it to be awful. I've found that when I expect something to be awful, my chances of enjoying it rise-- I imagine a truly horrible movie, and when it's merely bad I'm happy about it. X3 was truly terrible. After the great example set up by the first two, I was amazed to see Ratner crap all over what Singer had established. No characterization, plot holes big enough to drive a Mack Truck through, characters introduced for no apparent reason, a total disregard for the inherent logic and morality previously established about the characters. Also irritating-- killing off so many major characters; the mutant army of what were apparently just goth kids with no powers except running at the x-men and dying; the juggernaut.
I definitely am intrigued by the connection between the movie and the immigration debate, but I feel that it's coincidental at best. Where X2 was an allegory for the war on terror with well thought out arguments and philosophies, this is basically a Schwarzenegger flick that happens to dovetail with a current social issue. Comparing the two would be like comparing "An Inconvenient Truth" w/r/t environmental issues to "True Lies" w/r/t terrorism issues.
I just want to thank you for providing these movie reviews, they're quite intriguing.
Post a Comment