X-Men: The Last Stand

It's as if I've gone from a four-star restaurant called Singer's, serving chicken medallions in cheese batter, Sacher cake for dessert, and 2004 Chardonnay, to a perfectly functional fast-food chain called McRatner, with a triple burger and a Coke. You might eat at both places, but you'll have a different experience, not to mention the memories you'll take away. (14/09/2006)

Not as bad as it might seem at first glance. Ratner adores all the various mutant figures and is concerned first and foremost with getting them to show off as much as possible for the audience, and secondly with making sure that their antics and powers properly develop the story and maintain the fatality present in both of Singer's previous films. It's pretty nice to watch and there's always something going on, but the layering between so many characters is a bit shoddy at times and the pace is as frantic as in any guilty pleasure action flick. The final action set-piece is fine, I just don't like the scheme where someone we don't doubt isn't a bastard starts getting harassed in the head, and one invulnerable dude has to talk them through the pain and tell them that you just don't do that. (05/03/2017)

The clock started turning back, and Brett Ratner went back to the 1980s. He brought along a bunch of hotshots using special effects and made an impactful action spectacle that could certainly be a full-fledged film in its own right if it didn't want to tie itself to the previous two installments in the franchise. The theme and the screenplay (except for the terrible dialogue!) are fine, but Ratner completely misunderstands the meaning of the plot and instead plays at being a narrator. The mutants are characters with no psychology, no history, and no distinctive dimension. The quantum of new arrivals, most of whom don't even have a name, is brought out around in a disorganized manner and any action they take is completely self-serving. Without these specifics, their emotions towards themselves sound either ridiculous or (more likely) completely incomprehensible. Only Mr. Singer's group of old warriors carry the film forward, but even they aren't enough to keep the mutants from (sadly) burying themselves. The first time it was a blast, the second time an absolute collapse. (10/09/2006)

As Hollywood eye-candy entertainment for a young audience, The Last Stand is flawless. As a sequel to Singer’s X-Men 2, however, it’s just sad. Brett Ratner is an enthusiastic filmmaker, an aficionado of nice images, effects and movie heroes, but he’s too superficial and childish for the meaningfulness of the material that Bryan Singer outlined before him. The character of Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) and the occasional lapses in logic seem to have fallen out of a game adaptation by Paul W.S. Anderson and the film has more in common with Fantastic Four than with its predecessors. At the age of seventeen, when I loved Commando because there was “always something happening” in it, I would have liked The Last Stand best out of all of the X-Men movies. P.S. If Singer had added “his own thing” to the high-octane screenplay and shot it himself with a straighter face and a more modest 120-minute runtime, this really could have been the best instalment of the franchise. (23/05/2006)

Well, I don't know. At least given the material, this installment could have been the best one, but the way Ratner narrated the story was just pathetic. There was a lot of action in The Last Stand, but it was so devoid of emotions or spirit, that I just couldn't care less about how it all went and especially how it would turn out in the end, which is a huge red flag for any movie. Plus, most of the new characters and even some regular ones did not appear at all, so after the second installment, the rating dropped back down to average. (30/07/2013)