X-Men: The Last Stand

Compared to the second one, this entry is much less demanding in terms of viewer's attention and knowledge of the mutant mythology. Also, there is a bit less action, though the ending more than makes up for it. It was nice the cast again, as well the metal claws of good-old Wolverine, but the Famke Janssen’s character seemed completely redundant to me. It disrupts the main storyline and doesn't fit well into the hyped finale. The visual effects, on the other hand, are absolutely breathtaking – I could only watch in disbelief during the scene with the bridge, just like with the one involving Xavier. Brett Ratner knows very well how to satisfy the desires of mainstream viewers without significantly degrading the story and characters and he did a very good job here, even though the whole thing feels quite inconsistent and unengaging overall. At least the more intimate passages and romance are pleasant to watch. (18/07/2006)

A film that completely disgusted me throughout the entire trilogy. This is a film that is made solely for the sake of the effect, without any sense or ability to utilize not only the potential of what has already been filmed, but also the potential of the characters and the story. The emotional scenes do not work at all, new characters appear here that are completely unnecessary. A great disappointment. (29/03/2014)

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)

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)

Ratner is not Singer, which wouldn't be such a big flaw if it weren't for the fact that Singer = X-men. The young director inserted so much of his own style into the X-men series that Ratner simply has no options. However, he is able to do the action sequences as effectively as his predecessor, he handles the dynamics and tension well (the film really flows fast), and he also retains a decent portion of chemistry between the main characters. But. He lacks a creative approach to the matter, the new characters are bloodless, superficial, and any deeper dialogues in Ratner's routine performance suddenly sound convulsive and untrustworthy. There’s an increase in clichés and superfluous pathos, which replaces honest work with the main idea, in which Singer was the master of masters. Although the X-Men were never great philosophers, one could not deny them depth and sophistication. The third film has the energy, good moments and the characteristics of the previous parts, but Ratner is unable to imitate Singer's bravura and diligence. Why couldn't Bryan wait one more film? X-Men: The Last Stand could have been the peak, whilst this is just a good comic book film. ***1/2 (29/05/2006)