Reviews
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
The Good (Very Little), The Bad (Ratner), and The Ugly (The screenplay, written by the uncredited Mr. Simon Kinberg)
Bryan Singer, director of the first two X-Men films, revolutionized the superhero movie by delivering a thoughtful and personal character-driven narrative while shying away from the CGI-based form of storytelling that has plagued modern American blockbusters for the past decade. Brett Ratner, with "X-Men: The Last Stand", does exactly the opposite in what appears to be a middle-fingered tribute not only to moviegoers across the world, but to the film's cast itself. Brett Ratner has always been a fairly poor director despite his obvious talent with the camera because he can never get a good performance out of his actors. The returning mutants were obviously torn between playing their characters in the previous films and the concoctions Ratner especially created for them. Wolverine, while he retains some of the uncouth yet surprisingly gentle qualities that make him who he is, is emasculated into a hairier version of John Cusack. Similarly, Jean Grey transforms into a female stereotype of Agent Smith, and Storm seemingly possesses no personality at all.
And it's not like these people are terrible actors, either. Any film in possession of Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, and Halle Berry should not be devoid of a lack of expertise. However, movies are both directed and written, and the writer of "X-Men: The Last Stand" is so inept that IMDb has removed his name from the film's main page. A quick Google search of the name "Simon Kinberg" + "X-Men" returns his bio page on this website from May 20th complete with his credit for the film. A quick visit to that page today will reveal that the title is surprisingly absent from his resume. Now, I don't blame Mr. Kinberg from wanting to disassociate himself from the film. After all, he still wants to work in Hollywood. However, I have no qualms about proclaiming to the world that Mr. Kinberg wrote one of the worst screenplays since "The Core". One of the reasons the story is so unbelievably terrible is because Mr. Kinberg's devotion to the X-Men pales in comparison to the extensive knowledge Bryan Singer brought to the table. As a result, the audience is put through a narrative with many inconsistencies, awkward plot twists, and starchy characters. For example, when Jean Grey lifts the cars off the ground outside her house in the opening scene of the film, the audience doesn't know if it's her or Magneto until 30 seconds after the event. While this example is fairly minor (I don't want to reveal any spoilers...as if the movie itself isn't spoiled already), it encompasses the utter incompetence of Mr. Kinberg as a writer for this film.
Another major problem with this film is that it takes itself too seriously. Ratner includes the enjoyable thoughtlessness of campy visuals and dialogue, but because the movie tries too hard to have a higher moral message these moments become awkward. In fact, the film so awkwardly and explicitly states its themes (mainly about homosexuality, as if the angel-like mutant flying over the Golden Gate bridge wasn't enough to clue you in) that instead of creating an enjoyably mindless film, Ratner insults the audience's intelligence.
If you're a die-hard X-Men fan, you've probably already seen the movie and want my e-mail address to tell me how I "misinterpreted" the "genius" of the film. However, if you enjoyed the first two films because of the well-developed characters and the moments of pure cinematic joy, stay away from this movie entirely.
The Battle of the Sexes (1914)
Sets the standard in film-making for years to come
Forget Birth of a Nation and Intolerance - The Battle of the Sexes is the true Griffith masterpiece. The opening of the film absolutely radiates with sheer brilliance. There are three people in a barbershop getting their hair trimmed. Focusing on people's legs, Griffith's camera moves across the room, resting on a different character, revealing vital information about each of their personalities through their clothing, their behavior on screen, and the way in which they are edited. This may sound bland, but trust me, for a film made in 1914, the type of discourse Griffith creates between the audience and the screen is amazing. The movie continues to tell the story of a traditional upper class, white nuclear family torn apart by a father lusting over a gorgeous gold-digger. Filled with near-expressionist and symbolic (one of which is EXTREMELY Freudian) shots, Griffith creates a true masterpiece that, I believe, engages the audience more than The Birth of a Nation or Intolerance. I HIGHLY recommend this film to anyone, especially if they are serious about the cinema.