Change Your Image
jbucher24-1
Reviews
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Heavy on the action, light on actual substance
Definite spoilers herein. Do NOT read if you have not yet seen this movie and would like to do so.
For all you fan boys out there who have commented on this movie: We honestly don't give a crap about what happened in the comic books. The movie adaptations of the X-Men are designed to appeal to a far wider audience. Their purpose is to entertain, not to re-create frame by frame stories from the original books that could not possibly be done justice on the silver screen in ninety minutes. So if a character doesn't act or look like he/she does in the books, or if a certain plot line doesn't go exactly like you think it should, do us all a favor and go commiserate with yourselves. Leave us alone. We're too busy having lives.
Having said that, the writers for X-Men: The Last Stand would have done well to heed this advice and ignore the comic books, too. They seemed intent on cramming every character or plot line that had been introduced in the comic book series into this final incarnation of the franchise. The cost of this quantity is the overall quality of the film. Characters who we already know so much about are swept aside without much thought; Charles Xavier doesn't even make it through half the film, which is more than I can say for poor Cyclops, who makes it about ten minutes of the way through. We barely see Rogue or Mystique, and Nightcrawler, one of the most intriguing characters from X2, doesn't appear at all. Instead, we're given a steady diet of new characters without being privy to their individual histories or personalities; examples include Kitty Pryde, the Juggernaut, Multiple Man, and Archangel. Beast, played by Kelsey Grammar, is a new addition but is reasonably well developed. I actually enjoyed his role.
The characters from the first two movies that happened to survive this one do so with mixed results. Wolverine is reduced to spewing cheesy clichés and catch phrases; ditto for Storm, although we get to see a bit more of her mutant talents. However, the conflict between Ice Man and Pyro was riveting, especially given the brief amount of time spent on it (to be sure, no character gets too much attention here). I think I would be roped into seeing a spin off movie that featured the battle between these two if it were set ten years in the future. And Ian McKellen is masterful again as Magneto, to the point that his performance helps save the film. Finally, we see his character bring his dream of a war with humanity to fruition. As his dream becomes reality, Magneto transforms from terrorist nuisance to frighteningly powerful.
As far as plot lines go, the writers bit off more than they could chew. Two plot lines are stuffed into one movie: the aforementioned war with homo sapiens as touched off by a new cure for mutants, and the resurrection of Jean Grey incarnated as her alter ego, the Phoenix, whose powers are both limitless and uncontrollable.
I can't help but think how much better this movie would have been had they just kept Jean Grey dead. First, we wouldn't have been subjected to the tired comic book device of bringing back dead characters to sell issues, especially considering Jean dies again at the end anyway. Second, the characters Jean kills with her ramped up powers (Cyclops and Charles Xavier) presumably would have stuck around for the rest of the movie. I would have loved to have seen the ongoing conflict between Wolverine and Cyclops in the wake of Jean's death. And the final scene would have been so much cooler had more of the actual X-Men been present; given the setting of the final battle, Cyclops could have used his powers with breathtaking effect (seeing Rogue unleashed would have been great here as well).
Instead, we are asked to process both the rising war against humanity and the growing instability of the Phoenix while some of our favorite characters are blotted out. It's just too much, and the result feels rushed and thrown together.
On the plus side, the effects were outstanding from start to finish. The final scene, though it could have been done better from a character standpoint, was pretty freaking cool. The lasting image from this film will undoubtedly be Magneto's moving the Golden Gate Bridge to Alcatraz. It was apparent that no expense was spared when it came to this aspect of the film, and ultimately this is what kept me entertained throughout.
Final grade: 5/10. Very entertaining, but a shame that my concern for the characters that carried over from the first two movies was disregarded.
Ghost in the Machine (1993)
an extravaganza of electronic error
The opening credits to "Ghost in the Machine" show over a background of simulated computer circuitry at a microscopic level. The effects are just about what you would expect from the original "Lost in Space" television series, and I'm thinking to myself that surely this movie was made no later than 1980. Then I check its info on my digital cable...danger, Will Robinson! It was made in 1993. Wow, I think to myself, I don't remember special effects being that bad back in my teenage days. But hold on, I remind myself, wasn't T2 made in 1991, even before this movie? Then it hits me: "Ghost in the Machine" just really really sucks. But by then it's too late and I'm sucked into it's riveting story line...if by riveting you mean mind numbingly retarded.
"Ghost in the Machine" takes place somewhere in Ohio, a location as befittingly bland and pointless as this film. (I actually forget exactly what town it takes place in because I performed a lobotomy on myself right after viewing this pile of crap.) The main premise is that some serial killer guy, about whom we are given no background information other than he sports the smile of a child molester and likes to drive into oncoming traffic, transfers his consciousness upon his death into a vast computer network into which apparently every computer in the country is hooked up to. Surely, had Al Gore's nefarious scheme to invent this so-called "internet" been thwarted, the subsequent tragic deaths of several innocents would have been avoided. But alas, Bill Clinton was elected, and the fun's just beginning.
There exists a solemn, unspoken trust between filmmaker and viewer. This covenant is summed up by the concept of suspension of disbelief. (I'm going somewhere with this, just give me a second.) In other words, the viewer agrees to temporarily accept the reality posited by the film, and in exchange the filmmaker agrees to keep the story line roughly within the bounds of that reality. The writers of "Ghost in the Machine" saw fit to not-so-delicately urinate all over that covenant, and just when you think they couldn't possibly desecrate it anymore, they proceed to pull down their pants and spray diarrhea all over it.
Just what exactly am I talking about? OK, OK, so the killer's consciousness is supposedly now in the form of computer data. I'll buy that. It starts gathering information about the people it wants to kill...everything's still cool. The moment I call bull is when the killer is able to enact its whims through whichever electronic device it chooses. Apparently there is no distinction between a data network and the power grid in this universe; the killer happily goes about terrorizing people with microwaves, dishwashers, and pool covers that have no data storage capacity to speak of and aren't even hooked up to the network in which his consciousness is stored. The filmmakers further insult the viewers' intelligence by giving the killer the ability to make these devices do things WHICH THEY ARE PHYSICALLY INCAPABLE OF DOING. For example, one poor schmuck is killed when the business end of a hair dryer spews 10 foot long flames. Another moron meets his doom when the killer fills AN ENTIRE ROOM WITH RADIATION FROM A MICROWAVE OVEN. I mean, if these devices were actually designed to do these things, the terrorists would have already won. I can take some level of stupid, but when I am looking for the nearest pane of glass to throw myself through, it's gotten bad.
The heroes temporarily keep the killer at bay by putting tape over the electrical outlets in their house (I am NOT making this up). Apparently this guy can use a seemingly harmless kitchen appliance to roast human flesh but cannot make his way through a bit of weak polymeric adhesive material. I mean, have you ever heard of an electronic serial killer ghost stopped by mere tape? Yeah, I didn't think so. Needless to say, the heroes succeed in overcoming the killer in an ending so stupid that summarizing it will lower my IQ another ten points.
The real question I have for the makers of "Ghost in the Machine" is this: if the killer can at a whim transfer himself from computer network to power grid to phone lines, why can't he go into other utilities as well? Why stop at electronics? Imagine if he were to get into the gas mains and emit poisonous mustard gas! Or, how about getting into the water lines and creating an army of angry steam zombies? Cable lines, air ducts, sewer systems...the sky's the limit here. I smell sequel. Just please remember me in the credits when you make "Ghost in the Machine 2: Now with 50% More Stupid." In conclusion, there are bad movies, there are awful movies, and then there's "Ghost in the Machine." If you get the urge to see for yourself how truly bad this movie is, I advise you find the nearest steel pipe and bang yourself in the head with it for ninety minutes. I guarantee a lot more entertainment and far less pain.