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)

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)

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)

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)

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)