As Alien 3 is to Aliens...

Rating: 2/10 (26 May 2006)

In 2000 and 2003, two films appeared in cinemas that reaffirmed the old adage. The more you take the source material seriously when adapting a comic book to the big screen, the more successful the adaptation will be. There is another adage in film these days, namely that when the first sequel is as thrilling and life-affirming to watch as X-Men 2 was, the next sequel will be a horrendous disappointment. X-Men 3 upholds this adage like a badge of honour. To be fair, I was expecting a disappointment, but alarm bells started to ring in my head as soon as I saw that Brett Ratner had asked someone to proclaim that Einstein was not a mutant. It has been confirmed both through archival footage and the testimony of individuals who knew the man that Einstein, like Bill Gates or myself, was as close to the real-world equivalent of being a mutant as it gets. And unfortunately, with a war of words raging being Aspies and the normalists who wish to "cure" them, the rest of the film is insulting to the same people who cheered for X-Men 2.
Among Brett Ratner's problems is an attempt to weave two plot lines together. The aforementioned curebie war is enough to sustain at least one three-hour film. Sadly, Brett tries to weave it in with the Phoenix saga, a piece of X-Men lore to which a mound of comic books as thick as a standard hardback has been devoted. This, combined with a running time that cannot sustain either plot idea, dooms the film to a ceiling of mediocrity. Another problem for Ratner is his inability to treat the demands of his cast in the manner they deserve. Halle Berry, the worst actor of both previous films, demanded a leading role, and her name appears in the leading credits of the theatrical poster. Bryan Singer would have listened to her demands before informing her the door is behind her. Put simply, she is not capable of carrying a film, and hopefully X-Men 3 will be the last time she gets the chance. Hugh Jackman does his best to outfight her mediocrity, but it is no coincidence that the worst scenes all feature her prominently. Contrary to what she seems to think, she is about as much a mutant as I am a normie.
Another big problem lies in the action sequences. The previous two films kept them small, on the level of duels. As a result, the camera-work made them easy to follow, and the judgement of which side was doing what was easy. In X-Men 3, the camera whips around like a drunk in occasional shots, and making out who is fighting what gets confusing in a hurry. Making matters worse is that, in a total contrast to X-Men 2, Ratner is unable to provide a compelling reason for Xavier's mutants to fight Magneto's. Sure, Xavier and his people are dedicated to forging an alliance with humankind, but considering the behaviour of the humans in this film, that Xavier's soldiers would stoop to defending the human contingent from Magneto and his cohorts beggars belief. Find an Aspie and ask them if they would defend people who are trying to force a cure upon them from an organised Aspie army looking to prevent forced cures by any means necessary. Brett Ratner seems to think the answer is yes. Looking up the words Aspies For Freedom on the Wikipedia, for instance, will tell you a very different story.
And that is the one crippling problem that X-Men 3 cannot get past. I do not know if this story was put into production because someone half-read the war of words I just spoke of and thought it would be topical, but they fumbled the ball from the get-go. What I do know is that aside from Rogue, no mutant in this film has a shred of motivation to take the cure. Were I making this film, I would have included at least one scene of a mutant who has suffered terrible abuse due to their mutations being told happily that there is a cure by family members who fail to understand the extent of their suffering. Said mutant would tell them what to go and do with themselves, simply saying "I do not wish to become any more like you". Considering how much abuse the normalists put anyone who shows any difference, positive or otherwise, from them through, one would expect this scenario to be literally dominated by such scenes.
Are there good parts to this film? Well, yes, it is not a complete write-off. Ian McKellen proves once again that he knows far more about the subject matter than either director in the series, and that is not meant to be a put-down to Bryan Singer. Ian just hits the right notes without fail in every scene, no matter how badly written or directed it may be. I still wonder if Ratner really intended for the final shot to so accurately depict how one of our world's real mutants would feel about being cured. Hugh Jackman also manages to hit the right note every time he is in a scene, and proves himself to be at least worthy of acting in the same set as Ian. Kelsey Grammar is a very pleasant surprise, as I had always associated him with Republican politics. That he is able to portray an intelligent mutant struggling to diplomatically solve the communication problem is a credit to him. Vinnie Jones also gives a great performance as Juggernaut, portraying a mad and dangerous man as only Vinnie Jones can. So we can say at least they got the casting right, although Ratner criminally underutilises some of its best parts such as Anna Paquin.
In short, X-Men 3 is a three out of ten film. On its own, it is decent, but compared to its two ten out of ten predecessors, it is insulting.