Review: X-Men: First Class, by Jason Knize

X-Men: First Class

Directed by Matthew Vaughn

Starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Kevin Bacon, January Jones, Rose Byrne

Much has been made of X-Men: First Class and the filmmakers’ seeming disinterest in keeping with the previous four X-films’ continuity.  For those incensed at the use of Emma Frost as an adult woman in the 1960’s, which is in direct contradiction to her presence as a teen in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, set somewhere in the late-70’s to early-80’s, I assure you, that is where the glaring X-franchise continuity gaffes begin and end.  Also, to be fair, Emma Frost is used much more competently here than in her brief cameo in Wolverine.

That being said, the filmmakers’ attention to continuity, while admirable, has shackled them, and throughout my viewing of X-Men: First Class, I bemoaned the fact that the First Class I was seeing on screen was not the storied First Class of original Children of the Atom created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.

There are indeed great moments and interesting character beats throughout X-Men: First ClassMichael Fassbender‘s Erik Lehnsherr is far and away the most riveting (no pun) performance in the film.  Erik’s journey from World War II internment camps to his torture by Nazi scientists, to his blood oath to avenge the death of his mother to his imminent meeting of the minds with Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) provides X-Men: First Class with the gravitas and heart that the remainder of the film sorely lacks. 

Caleb Landry Jones as Banshee provides the Bobby-Drake-esque comic relief to the young mutant team, and the action sequences showcasing young Sean Cassidy’s mutant ability are some of the best since Tobey MacGuire leaped from rooftop to rooftop in the original Spider-ManKevin Bacon is great, as Kevin Bacon usually is, but could he have been utilized better in a role other than Sebastian Shaw?  Likely.  Even January Jones, whom some would say is stiff, wooden, void of acting talent, portrays Emma Frost as a master manipulator, even if, like most of the X-Men: First Class cast, she doesn’t adapt her character’s traditional accent.

The bad doesn’t all stem from the slavish commitment to continuity.  For a film marketed with young Professor X and Magneto in the forefront, their relationship took a backseat, causing Magneto’s fall and the two divergent paths to hold little-to-no weight.  Instead, more attention was paid to an awkward surrogate sibling relationship between Charles and Raven (Mystique, blue prosthetics ably filled by Jennifer Lawrence).

For a film that was touted as a “period-piece” set in the American 1960’s amid the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Civil Rights Movement, it certainly did not feel like it.  In a scene depicting the new X-team getting to know one another, I wouldn’t have been surprised if Angel Salvadore had been playing Angry Birds on her iPad while Havok Tivoed an episode of Jersey Shore.  Speaking of the Civil Rights Movement, wasn’t the struggle against segregation and the idea that “all men are created equal” supposed to serve as a backdrop to the mutants’ own plight?  If it was there, I missed it.

The most egregious of errors in X-Men: First Class comes at the expense of a true First Class-er, Hank McCoy, aka, BeastX-Men: The Last Stand has its fair share of detractors, but no one can argue that Kelsey Grammar didn’t play a pitch-perfect Beast in an X-film otherwise considered abysmal.  Nicholas Hoult‘s Hank McCoy showed me no glimpse of the Beast he would become, instead, gave a better Clark Kent performance than Tom Welling did on 10 seasons of Smallville.  Once transformed into his blue-furred destiny, Hoult and McCoy were hidden behind thick prosthetics, distracting dentures, and a lack of any further character arc past the ham-fisted Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde transformation.

I regret that First Class did not feature the original team of Cyclops, Marvel Girl, Beast, Iceman, and Angel, not only because they are the true First Class, but because those characters have some 50-years of story and relationships between them.  I would’ve much rather seen Hank and Bobby palling around instead of Darwin and Havok.  Instead of Mystique and Beast’s ventilation shaft tryst, how much would our entire subculture have geeked out over the first kiss of Scott and Jean?

There was certainly a theory prior to the film’s release that the introduction of this Junior Varsity X-Men team was only to create a body count come the climax of First Class, but without spoiling too much, the number of mutant deaths on screen can be counted on one hand (one of Nightcrawler‘s hands, even).  I tried my best to accept First Class for what it was, and not to make myself crazy with speculation of what might have been, but at every turn, First Class seemed to lack the heart that has been a calling card of the X-Men universe from the very outset.

As rumors came out of the production that things were being rushed and slapped together, I admit to turning my nose up at First Class, sight-unseen.  Then, the trailer hit, and fears began to subside, and hype and hope were on the rise.  Suffice it to say, I was stoked to see First Class and review it for PanelsOnPages.com. However, I had planned on this review being a positive one, in step with almost every review on the internet.  But the movie-going experience changed my plans.  X-Men: First Class isn’t a bad movie, by any means, but it left me unimpressed and wanting for something better.

 

 

 

2/5 Nazi Coins.

–Knize


Share

Filed Under: MoviesReviews

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who ARE these people!?

Jason Knize, K-Nice if you're nasty, is a co-founder of PanelsOnPages.com, resident News Editor, and one-half of the World Tag Team Champions, The 11th Hour. You can usually find him in the most wretched hive of scum and villainy...The PoP!ulation Forums.

   

Comments (86)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Jason Kerouac says:

    http://panelsonpages.com/?p=39263

    I couldn’t disagree more with almost everything you just said.

    You bemoan the filmmakers’ slavish devotion to the prior films continuity, yet then bitch about them not following that of the comics. What sense does that make? And – in fact – where’s the logic behind it? I don’t think anything about this movie except the opening scene and the one cameo suggests ANY sort of dedication to the first three/four movies.

    You think Charles and Erik’s relationship took a back seat to Charles and Raven’s? I think it was necessary for them to build up the relationship with Raven to show how sympathetic Erik’s path could be – without that turn, he’s JUST a villain.

    Were the characters acting “out of period?” Meh. Maybe? I don’t know what a group of mutant teenagers drafted by the CIA would have acted like in the ’60s. I don’t really feel like dancing to popular music of the time would have been outside the realm of possibility, though.

    And I REALLY don’t get having any sort of problem with Beast. Hank was one of the first self-loathing mutants in the comics. To play that up here made perfect sense. I’ll admit, his super speed was a little weird, but everything else was fantastic. He was a nerd. He was an outsider. But when he let go of all of that? He was a hero.

    These are all just opinions, of course, but I really don’t see where you’re coming from at all.

    • KikiD22 says:

      Both of the Jasons have points I agree with. I do have a problem myself with the cameos (two that I counted, one was super brief, my fiance even missed it) and the opening scene if they didn’t continuity with the other films. When the filmmaker has flat out announced a disregard for the continuity of the other three films, I go into it with that expectation, and it becomes distracting, for die hard X-Men fans like me, to see the mix of continuity and not.

      I have to say though, I really enjoyed the movie. When I put aside my mental checklist of errors, the movie was fun and entertaining, which is what really matters, right?

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        Agreed in toto, Kiki! Was the second cameo a reference to one of the girls found by Cerebro?

        • Jason Kerouac says:

          And do you count the mention of the elder CIA operative’s son as a “cameo?”

          • Lee Rodriguez says:

            No, but I count Rebeeca Romaijn on the bed as one. It was definitely a blink and you’ll miss it moment, but I was a nice touch and another little bit of continuity tying it to the first fims.

    • Jason Knize says:

      The continuity the filmmakers were slaves to is not of that of the comics, but that of the previous films. That’s why there’s wasn’t the “original” X-Men in this film, and why we’ll never see the original five in this current franchise. If they didn’t care about the continuity of the previous films, then why NOT have Jean and Scott and Bobby and Warren? Because…a precedent has been set.

  2. Isaac D Parker says:

    Hey guys, let me just say I respect both of you for the fellow geeks you are. Having seen first class; I understand the route the filmmakers decided to take. It can get confusing rebooting a film series every 5 to 10yrs, especialy one that five related films under it’s belt. Continuity issues aside, the film works and is by far the 2nd best X-Men film!

  3. Thundermatts says:

    I haven’t even seen the movie and I know your claim that Emma Frost is the only source of continuity error in this film compared to the other four is wrong. The other big one may be something of a spoiler, so I’ll refrain from posting it, but the smallest being that Hank McCoy appears in X2 as a human. It’s an easter egg really, so may not be considered more than such. I do subscribe to the theory that this flick is only in continuity with Singer’s X flicks, while ignoring Last Stand and Wolverine. I’m down with that for sure.

    • Jason Knize says:

      One would like to think that First Class isn’t in continuity with Last Stand and Wolverine, but then why would they go to the trouble of explaining why Mystique hasn’t aged as much as she should’ve once depowered in Last Stand?

      The shot of Hank on television in X-2 was already a flaw in continuity by the time we arrived at a blue Kelsey Grammar Beast in Last Stand, so that was already out the window. Explain it away as some sort of cloaking device that allowed Hank not to appear Beast-ly to the common viewer. But you have to admit, come Last Stand, that wasn’t a Beast who had been blue and furry just a scant few years.

      • Chance says:

        Why does everyone keep claiming Hank in X-2 without fur is a continuity error? Has everyone forgotten that Beast started without fur, had fur, then was without fur again in X-Factor until Infectia kissed him which caused him to permanently mutate into bring furry again?

        I have to wonder at self-appointed experts.

  4. Junkle says:

    I would like to point out another continuity error. Magneto/Sebastian’s helmet. Not only is it not valid in comic continuity, but is in direct vation of what Mgneto told Pyro about it in X-2. And nott only that, Emma even had a small cameo as a teenager in X-2. Now, my personal complaints aside, I still thought it was an excellent movie.

    • Jason Knize says:

      What did Magneto tell Pyro about the helmet in X-2?

      • MDG says:

        I just saw X-2 since I wasnt going to be able to see First Class in a while. But I believe this is the quote

        Pyro: So, they say you’re the bad guy.

        Magneto: Is that what they say?

        Pyro: That’s a dorky looking helmet. What’s it for?

        Magneto: This “dorky looking helmet” is the only thing that’s going to protect me from the REAL bad guys

  5. Jason Knize says:

    Bottom line is….they didn’t buck the previous films’ continuity nearly enough to suggest that we’ll ever get to see an X-Men team that anyone couldn’t care less about. And if they DO eventually go further outside of their own continuity, why not reboot in the first place?

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      I’d argue that the LACK of diverting from the original trilogy’s continuity was to keep things from getting messy. Even if the next films diverge from that continuity, they’ll have built off of this one. There’s a difference between seeing Scott, Jean, Bobby and Warren together as students in this film – where in X3 Bobby and Warren had come along much later; and seeing them together in the next movie, as a continuation of this film’s continuity. I’ve said right along that, continuity-wise, this movie was going to be an intermediary step. We now know that Hugh Jackman is still Wolverine. That’s continuity. And Erik Lehnsherr still had the same origins. Beyond that, the first class universe is a clean slate. Hell, I’d even argue the Rebecca Romijn cameo was more of an Easter Egg than a continuity nod. I don’t think we’ll necessarily see her as Mystique in any of the future films. That was just a fun tongue in cheek moment.

  6. Isaac D Parker says:

    All I remember Magneto saying to Pyro regarding his helmet was along the lines of “this dorky looking helmet is what protects me from the real bad guys”. This was after Pyro called it dorky of course. It was not a break in continuity of any sort. Trust me on this.

  7. Jason Knize says:

    And come on…let’s all admit…the final reveal of Fassbender in his classic colors was awesome….until the camera showed him from the front. TERRIBLE.

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      We’ve seen a VERY similar costume in the comics. If this is a world where the X-Men’s spandex is replaced by those jumpsuits, why would Magneto have something as cartoony as he wears in the comics. I thought this was a nice nod, as it’s clearly based on the costume that they put in the comics as a nod to the movie, so for it now to make its way INTO the movies is fantastic, IMHO. Could it look better? Yes. But was it TERRIBLE? No. In fact, once I saw the redesigned helmet, I stopped caring altogether.

  8. Lee Rodriguez says:

    The first class could have been Mondo, Beak, Forearm, Boomer and Dazzler and this still would have been great movie, Put aside the non comic accuracy of the class and there’s virtually nothing wrong with movie when taken for what it is.

    • Jason Knize says:

      And that’s where I’d have to argue that you’re wrong. The “First Class” should mean something, not just an array of random canonical characters thrown together without rhyme or reason. Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon. He’s a national hero because he was the first…he took the small step for man, which in turn, was the giant leap for mankind. I didn’t expect it to effect me as much as it did, but seeing characters other than the original five suit up in “classic” yellow and blue hurt my soul, not to mention the forced or non-existent interpersonal relationships between the team.

      In a perfect world, this film would have focused more on the relationship between Charles and Erik, and instead of recruiting a team for CIA ops, they would’ve both been recruiting persecuted mutants as students for the Xavier Institute. Only once the threat of nuclear war came about would they have banded together as a team to stop the imminent apocalypse. Then, just as this film did with the scene on the beach, the team would diverge into the two groups, the X-Men, and The Brotherhood.

      Populate the school with the original five, some Brotherhood mainstays like Toad, Blob, Mystique, Avalanche, and Pyro, and a handful of expendables, then, you have your two divergent teams as well as a mutant body count, and the interpersonal relationships that have been a cornerstone of the X-Men for 50 years.

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        You want it comic accurate, but you advocate Mystique being part of Magneto’s brotherhood, something that’s never happened.

        You complain about the “forced” or “non-existent” interpersonal relationships. So, if they tried, they were forced, and where they didn’t, they were non-existent. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, eh? I still love the Beast/Mystique subplot. Here’s a guy who looks perfectly normal walking around, but who considers himself a freak. Suddenly, a pretty girl likes him. She’s doing the same thing he is, though… trying to be beautiful by hiding. Neither one wants to have to hide – the difference is, Beast wants to be like Charles; anonymous. Mystique just wants to be able to be herself. It’s a great dynamic.

    • Jason Knize says:

      “Put aside the non comic accuracy of the class and there’s virtually nothing wrong with movie when taken for what it is.”

      I’ll freely admit, no matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t get past the inaccuracy of this film’s “First Class”, and is surely the main reason I didn’t care for the film. As far as “taking it for what it is”, I was under the assumption that First Class was supposed to be a step in a new direction for not only the X-franchise, but for comic book movies as a whole. Fantastic Four starring Jessica Alba and the dude from Nip/Tuck as Electro-Doom should be “taken for what it is”. X-Men: First Class, a movie meant to buck trends and restart a franchise should be better than that.

  9. Justin Schultz says:

    I really thought that this movie worked as both a potential reboot and a continuation of the current X-Men films.

    If the filmmakers wanted to create a new run of movies with this (which I hope to all that is holy in the world they do), they could easily continue the story, showing Charles and Erik becoming more antagonistic, but yet showing a respect for each other and their viewpoints. The potential opening for the next movie makes me all kinds of giddy.

    Also, this movie fits in pretty well with the current X-Men films. Regarding Cyclops, Storm, and Jean’s status as the “First Class” in this universe, I have some evidence begging differently. When Charles is introducing Wolverine/Logan to the Xavier Institute and the X-Men, he says that these three were “some of my first students”, not THE first students.

    Just my thoughts.

    • Jason Knize says:

      I never implied that the original five were indeed the original five in this movie universe. The previous films’ continuity would have never allowed for that.

      I don’t understand the idea that this film could in fact be a reboot. Most every effort is made to keep this story within the film continuity…the recreation of the opening from X1…character, prop, and set designs….the inclusion of actors from previous films…the explanation of Mystique’s lack of aging…

      We can’t have it both ways. Either it’s a reboot, or it’s not, and Matthew Vaughn has gone on record saying this is not a reboot. So…if it’s not a reboot…I would be led to assume that a reboot is not in the near future…however…if they reboot within the current franchise continuity…keep First Class as canon…but then bring in Jean and Scott and Bobby and Warren in the next film or later, then why not reboot in the first place?

      As it stands….until Fassbender and McAvoy age by 40 years, in this current prequel franchise continuity, we won’t be seeing Bobby, Warren, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Rogue, Kitty, or Pyro for quite a while. At best, fast forward 15 years in the future, and we could have a team with Jean, Scott, Storm, the remaining members of First Class, and whatever other D-listers they decide to throw in.

      • Justin Schultz says:

        I just think that this film allows for the possibility of a new film series, if it were successful enough to warrant one. The items that they did keep from the past film series can easily be included in any other series they want to attempt.

        • Jason Kerouac says:

          This is exactly it (sorry I didn’t read this comment sooner)

          If this movie bombed, it was a prequel to the others. No harm, no foul.

          If this movie succeeded… well, the sky’s the limit. Literally the ONLY thing they have to bring forward from the previous movies is Hugh Jackman. EVERYTHING else is now up for grabs. It’ll never be a direct translation of the comics, but nothing here says it HAS to feed into the movies that came before it, either.

          I just don’t get discounting all the good of this movie simply because you didn’t like the roster. Cause here’s the thing about the comic book five… nothing about those five characters in particular made them the five who HAD to be the first class. They just were. They were the first five characters Stan came up with. This is a movie that was written and directed almost 50 years later, with NUMEROUS characters having been introduced in the meantime. To stick with those original five “just because” means shackling creative liberty. Could they have picked a better first class? Oh, yeah. Point blank, Namor should have been in here instead of Angel. But, I suspect his rights may be tied up elsewhere.

          Point is, if one of the original five had been Forge because he designed Cerebro, and then they took Forge out, I’d agree and say “That was stupid, why change it to have Beast design Cerebro when it could and should have been Forge?” In this case, nothing about those first five defined the formation of the team, really, or even how it grew and changed over the years. Hell, bringing Cyclops in AFTER Havok yet STILL having him rise to the rank of team leader makes the character far more interesting, if you ask me. Then Scott’s in charge because he was the right guy for the job, or because he needed to prove himself in the shadow of his brother… not just because he had tenure.

  10. Thundermatts says:

    My least favorite complaint people have about comic movies is that it’s not the comic. Go read the comic. This is the first class in movie verse X-Men. Sory it’s not the iconic five, but tough shit really. It’s the movie verse iconic group. Maybe future movie classes will hear about this class, and be like man I wish I was more like Cyclopses super way older brother. Or that black dude. They were the shizzle fo rizzle.

  11. KomicKev says:

    I think the biggest problem is that this movie came out AFTER the first 3 X-Men. Also, whomever wrote, directed, produced the first Wolverine movie seemingly didn’t watch the other 3 X-Movies and apparently didn’t read many Wolverine comics. Most of the X movies seem to have been cobbled together using whatever mutants they could SFX together at the time they came out with the technology available . . . I suppose.

    Yes, I would have LOVED to see the original 5 battling Magneto and the original BoEM, but I couldn’t because some lunkhead stuck Angel’s origin into the 3rd movie and made Bobby Drake a love/crush interest of Kitty Pryde (both of the same age and in the same class at Xavier’s school).

    I LOVE that we’ve been getting X-Movies out at all (along with all the other superhero movies) and I appreciate they have to take some liberties with the movies as comics don’t always readily translate into film, but I think it would have been nice if this fourth X-Men movie actually showcased the actual, original Hellfire Club storyline found in the comics just before the grand Phoenix storyline (obviously after we’d already been introduced to the original “First Class” and then chronologically introduced to the All-New, All-Different X-Men). THAT would have been one helluva movie I think.

    Kevin

  12. D-Rock says:

    Saw this tonight and I’ll say it was just “ok”. Not bad, but not great. I don’t really have any huge complaints, just that like Thor, it was missing a “wow” factor.

  13. Nick Brammer says:

    I wanted to like this movie more. I see almost universal praise for McAvoy as Xavier and just don’t see it. He didn’t ring true to what has been established in the first movies as Xavier. I can’t see him transforming into Patrick Stewart.

    Fassbender on the other hand had the potential to become Ian McKellan’s character.

    I think with what he was handed Bacon did a decent job.

    I had very high hopes for this movie, and while I enjoyed Fassbender and Bacon, the rest of the movie didn’t have much heart to me. It tried very hard to show you a hip, young Xavier, and it fell flat.

    Another minor quibble was the end of the movie. With what caused Xavier’s paralysis, I can’t see the relationship the two characters have in X-Men being so cordial.

    That in itself raises continuity questions that will not be easily answered.

  14. Joshua says:

    Since this is a comic book-based website, I think movie reviews are given a little more leeway when considering accuracy to source material. However, a movie’s quality hinges on far more than how beholden it is to its source material. Can a majority of non-comic book readers sit down and enjoy the movie for it’s cinematic merits, rather than how meticulous it is in recreating the comics? I’d say in the case of Firt Class, the answer is yes.

    I could be wrong, Jason, but aren’t you a fan of Tim Burton’s Batman movies? They’re rife with inconsistencies with the source material, but they’re still well-made movies, regardless of the way Burton disregards precedent and continuity.

    Another thing to keep in mind, is that comic book teams and characters have been constantly changing, evolving, and retconning since their inception. If the comics themselves aren’t beholden to their own origins, it seems a little unrealistic to expect any different from the movies. After all, when Batman was created he carried a gun and Alfred was just some bumbling detective he would sometimes run into. Superman didn’t originally fly, he jumped real high. Comics and comic characters are in constant flux. Continuity is nice, but it’s hardly something that’s in cement. It almost sounds like you’re biggest beef lies not with the movie, but rather the title and had the powers that be called it “X-men: Young Mutants” or something that doesn’t indicate the first class, then you wouldn’t have had the same axe to grind.

    • Jason Knize says:

      I’m being misunderstood in regards to my thoughts on continuity and staying true to the original team. I’m not an X-Men historian. I can’t recite 50 years worth of X-Men story and characters. I don’t expect any X-Men film (or comic book film) to follow the source to the letter. Anytime I commented on continuity in this review, it was in reference to the X-Movie universe’s own continuity, not the Marvel Comics continuity.

      However, as an “origin” story of the first X-team, I felt that the filmmakers missed a great opportunity to wipe the previous films’ continuity and give us the original 5 X-Men. Take the same script, and replace Havok, Mystique, Banshee, and Angel with Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman and ANGEL, and that’s infinitely already a better movie than what First Class was (in my opinion). It would’ve made me care.

      In regards to your Burton’s Batman analogy: I’m a huge fan of Burton’s Batman and Batman Returns, but that was a different era in comic book movies. As it was in 2000 when X-Men was released. I’m a huge fan of the original X-Men movie, but some 11 years later, things have changed. X-Men got away with a lot of characterization, backstory, and aesthetic issues because it was one of the first in this new era of comic book movie blockbusters. Now, in THIS new era of The Dark Knight and Iron Man and the Marvel shared universe, filmmakers are staying much closer to source material, appeasing die-hard fans, while still making films that are accessible to general audiences. Keeping with the model of an 11-year-old film was shortsighted, as was Bryan Singer’s dedication to keeping with the threads of Donner’s Superman movies when he made Superman Returns.

      Had the movie been called something other than First Class, maybe I wouldn’t have had such a problem…but even then, it’s still supposed to be “the origin story” of the X-Men. I’m astounded by the across-the-board discounting of the original five. Am I kidding myself when I hold in my heart the belief that the original five X-Men mean something? Could it have been any other five X-Men and the X-Men comics of today would remain unchanged?

      In my mind, the original 5 X-Men are as important to the X-Men’s origin as the death of Uncle Ben is to Peter Parker, just as being bombarded by cosmic rays is integral to the origin of the Fantastic Four, just as being found by the Kent’s is important to the origin of Superman, just as The Hulk’s alter ego is Bruce Banner.

      Maybe I’m wrong. In contrast to a majority of fan reaction and critical response, my opinion is the minority. I don’t expect others to feel the same as I did, nor do I consider them wrong for enjoying the film. I wanted to. I wished I could. But I didn’t. As every minute passed as I sat in front of that screen, my enjoyment deteriorated further and further. It wasn’t hate for the sake of hate or taking the opposing view just to be a dick. I can’t help that as I watched that movie, I was overwhelmingly disappointed.

      As a fan of X-3…I’m kind of amazed that many of the same people that destroyed that film for problems considered numerous, would enjoy and defend First Class for very similar problems.

      • Nick Brammer says:

        I don’t think the original 5 of the X-Men are as important as the other things you mentioned. When they launched Ultimate X-Men they didn’t go with the original 5 either.

        What was important were the themes of the book: racism, acceptance, and protecting the humans that hate and fear you. I don’t think those were handled well either. They were either beating you over the head with them, or ignoring them to show how cool the mutants were.

        • Joshua says:

          Nick beat me to it. I don’t hold the original five as sacred. I think you could swap them out for almost any five mutants and keep the same themes intact.

          I do agree that there have been enough movies that have stayed faithful to the source material without sacrificing quality to debunk the argument that one must stray from the comics to adapt to the screen. Quality and faithfulness are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I don’t really disagree with any of your observations, they’re just not so major as to repel me from the movie.

          I don’t think First Class is anywhere near as good as the hype is making it out to be (based on my one tainted viewing), but I think it’s still a well-made movie with more good than bad.

          • Jason Knize says:

            My first ever purchase with my first ever paycheck EVER was the Classic X-Men Box set that Toy Biz released in the late 90’s. I still have it, box and all, even if Iceman has two right hands. That’s what the original five X-Men mean to me, and for others to think that those original 5 are interchangeable with any other five mutants is disheartening.

            • Jason Kerouac says:

              My question to you is this: What about each of those five is specifically relevant to the origins of the X-Men? If Warren’s money had been a factor in the early years, or if Beast had been responsible for all of the X-Men’s tech, I could understand your argument better. But Xavier had his own money and most of their tech came from the Shi’Ar or other random sources. Don’t get me wrong, I love the original five, but I don’t see any intrinsic characteristics about any one of them that was REALLY a necessary element for the founding of the X-Men.

              I’ll go you one further, though. This was ALWAYS going to be the story of Erik and Charles. Period. If you’d put the actual first class in this movie, they’d have gotten just as much screen time and character development as the no-names did. And wouldn’t that have been even worse than excluding them? Instead, if the filmmakers DO treat this as the first movie in a new franchise, we now have the potential of a second movie introducing characters who we want to have more screen time. I’d argue that everyone here but Beast could go off to do their own thing, or even teach, and a new class could come in and become the field team, and this would be the team you’re looking for. Like Joshua said, think of this as X-Men: Origins, not X-Men: First Class. It seems like that’s the issue at hand.

              • Jason Knize says:

                What is it about those five that is specifically relevant to the origins of the X-Men? How about the fact that they were the original X-Men? FACT. There’s no getting around that. The X-Men comic debuted with that team. 50 years later, that team is known worldwide by comic fans as the original X-Men. The recent X-Men: First Class comics feature that team as the original X-Men. No matter what Scott, Jean, Hank, Bobby and Warren do, their biggest claim to fame is and will always be their place on the original X-Men team. As each character has matured and evolved throughout the years, the common thread that always sticks with them is that they are X-Men, and were part of the original X-Men. Some (if not all) of the original five have later taken up teaching at Xavier’s School, teaching and training new generations of mutants.

                How were Johnny and Sue Storm instrumental in the origin of the Fantastic Four? They were only included in the space mission because Sue was banging Reed and she wanted to bring her brother along for the ride, too. It could’ve easily been two other meat sacks filling their space suits, or none at all. But they were written as part of the original Fantastic Four, and no matter how many incarnations that team goes through, Reed, Ben, Johnny and Sue will always be the original and most well-known Fantastic Four team.

                Who knows if I would’ve felt First Class gave short shrift to the original five X-Men had they been in the film? Because it didn’t happen…and most likely won’t happen. Instead, just as Last Stand and Wolverine were roundly criticized for, we were given a haphazard collection of C-list mutants with no relationships or purpose.

                • Nick Brammer says:

                  Have to disagree with you about the FF. Sure Sue was banging Reed and that’s why she was included. That’s a personal relationship. The FF has always been the First FAMILY of comics. If anyone was replaceable it was Ben, and he has been the most replaced member of the FF, and then the Torch.

                  • Jason Knize says:

                    And Scott and Jean weren’t a personal relationship?

                  • Jason Knize says:

                    Also…isn’t Ben a pilot, and that’s why he was part of the FF’s origin?

                    • Nick Brammer says:

                      Yes Ben was a pilot. Throw a rock and you’ll hit a pilot. Scott and Jean weren’t an item when the X-Men first started. That was some of the tension between Bobby and Scott.

                    • Jason Knize says:

                      So, you’re saying that, although piloting the ship that caused them to be bombarded by cosmic rays, Ben is a replaceable member of the classic Fantastic Four, not Sue or Johnny, who were there simply because of a personal relationship with Reed?

                      Yet Scott and Jean, who would later form one of the most well-known romances in comics….and Bobby and Scott…who you admit had tension over Jean….none of them are necessary in regards to the original team of X-Men…..???

                      We, as nerds, complain a lot (sometimes rightfully so) about liberties taken with source material. Why is it…due to this review… that the original X-Men team seems like the one thing that doesn’t apply? Are those that liked First Class giving the movie a huge pass because they enjoyed it? Am I wrong in wanting the original class of X-Men because so many felt the film was a homerun, and the dismissal of the original team is just a way of telling me I’m wrong about the way I feel?

                      That’s the long and the short of it…these are my feelings about the film, about the original X-Men, and it is clearly reflected and communicated in my review. I had a unfulfilling movie going experience because of the reasons I cited. I’m not making claims that those of you that did enjoy the film, shouldn’t have, because it wasn’t the original X-Men. But, on the flipside, in defense of the film and it’s choice of characters, the original X-Men team, with over 50 years of history, is being openly and roundly discounted as not meaning a whole hell of a lot? Seriously?

                • Jason Kerouac says:

                  But, see, you’re not answering my question at all. You’re telling me what effect being the original X-Men had on those five – that THAT is how they are now known for eternity. But I’m asking what effect those five had on being the original X-Men.

                  Your FF example sort of proves my point… Ben was a pilot, they needed a pilot; Reed was a genius, they needed a genius; Sue and Reed were a couple, and Johnny was her brother; they at least had motivation to go along. If you did a Fantastic Four movie where you tried to sub in She-Hulk and Wolverine in place of Sue and Johnny, that would make no sense. Yes, they were members of the team eventually, but there’s no dynamic as to why those two characters would be involved in this mission. With the X-Men, most everyone was drafted by Xavier at some point or another because they were mutants. It’s not like Banshee only became an X-Man because he had some sort of deep-seated hero worship for Iceman. If that had been the case in the comics, and then they put Banshee on the team before Iceman, it would feel wrong. But as it is… those five WERE the original X-Men through the luck of the draw, and no matter how much BEING the original X-Men changed THEIR lives, they did precious little to affect what being X-Men meant. At least, that is, in the early years.

                  • Jason Knize says:

                    My FF example refutes your point. How does a romantic and sibling relationship qualify two people for a space mission? There is nothing about the characters of Sue and Johnny that was integral in the origin of the Fantastic Four. They are part of the team because of dumb luck. On the other hand, all five original X-men were mutants. Boom.

  15. D-Rock says:

    “Take the same script, and replace Havok, Mystique, Banshee, and Angel with Cyclops, Jean Grey, Iceman and ANGEL, and that’s infinitely already a better movie than what First Class was (in my opinion). It would’ve made me care.”

    That right there. I’m not outraged that the original 5 weren’t used, but yeah, it would have been nice because those are the characters I actually have a rapport with. Those were the characters I followed for most of my comic reading career. Put Pixie, er.. “Angel” in a life and death situation and I couldn’t care less because she’s just a tacked on movie substitute. Put one of the original 5 in that situation and I’m definitely more hooked.

    To those who say “as long as the themes were still there”, let me ask you this.. If The Dark Knight used “Clown Boy”, a psychopath who isn’t scarred, dresses like Bozo and still has a mischievous side, instead of The Joker would it have been the same? To quote a certain Norse god, “I SAY THEE NAY!” 😆

    • Joshua says:

      You miss the point, Derek. I’m not saying ALL characters are interchangeable. Your Joker example proves just how ridiculous a notion that would be. Lord knows the movie would have suffered greatly without Xavier and Magneto. However, when you’re talking about a team that has had a constantly changing roster for its entire existence, I do think you can be more flexible with which characters are showcased. I’m not going to say that I wouldn’t have preferred more classic characters over the likes of Flying Stripper, Darwin, and Havok, because I would, but I don’t think their inclusion severely hampers the movie, especially considering how little characterization the younger mutants received.

      • D-Rock says:

        “I think you could swap them out for almost any five mutants and keep the same themes intact.”

        These were your words. You’re saying it doesn’t matter who’s in the role as long as the theme is there. My Joker example was that even if everything in that movie stayed the same (story, acting, overall quality), it loses impact because it’s simply not the Joker.

        I’m not saying the casting choice severely hampered the movie either. What I am saying is that having the original 5 may have created more buy-in from some people.

        • Joshua says:

          You’re right, those are my words, so are the ones below them where I completely elaborated that point and explained it further. Please don’t tell me what I’m saying. I know what I’m saying, and I attempted to articulate it better, but it seems you’d rather ignore that so you can continue an argument.

          But I’ll say it again, just for you. You’re Joker example is dead-on, you can’t just exchange any character willy-nilly. And while I can see where my initial comment made it seem that’s what I was saying, I further elaborated saying that not just any character could do, but in a movie about a team of X-men, any character who has been an X-man could fill the role about a team of persecuted mutants. You know, the way it’s always been since the books have existed, what with the rotating rosters.

          • D-Rock says:

            Fer christsakes.. I’m not continuing an argument all I’m asking you to do is imagine a world where some people DON’T think an X-Men movie could just feature almost any mutant because some will have more resonance than others. And while for you, the impact of that choice was minimal, for others it may have been of more importance. And as much as you’d like to point out that almost any persecuted mutant would have sufficed in those minor roles, you’ll never be right because you’re arguing one opinion against another.

            Simply put, I was surprised to see that no one seemed to understand Knize’s point that certain characters would have resonated with him better and therefore would have gotten more enjoyment from the movie as opposed to those that actually were chosen. It had nothing to do with the performances perse’, just the level of buy-in. Maybe I didn’t do a good job trying to clarify that point, so I’ll step back out and let you all get back to telling each other how wrong everyone is for their feelings. 😆

  16. Joshua says:

    Are you being obtuse on purpose? How many times can I clarify that I’m NOT saying “any old mutant” will do, but that I personally think that one could interchange the roles with another X-MEN TEAM MEMBER. I’m not saying that they will all resonate with you or Jason, I even acknowledged that I too would prefer the classic originals over some of the ones they used, but that by swapping them out WITH OTHER ESTABLISHED X-MEN that the filmmakers can still tell the same story of persecution and acceptance.

    • D-Rock says:

      You call me obtuse, but yet you’re arguing a completely different point, so do you really wonder why I have to keep repeating myself? You keep arguing over the ability to tell a story of acceptance, NO ONE IS DEBATING THAT WITH YOU. I’m trying to point out a person’s level of buy-in.

      The kid who played Banshee could have delivered the same performance as Warren Worthington and some people would have liked it better simply because it’s Warren. I don’t think I can say it simpler than that. I agree to your point that they can tell the same story using another team member, but the team member used WILL affect a person’s level of buy-in/enjoyment simply because of who they are.

      It has nothing to do with the execution of the story, or the themes played upon, it’s a simple matter of who is on the screen. Just that simple act of seeing “Character X” on screen is going to make a certain fanboy smile with glee.

      If you’d like to keep insulting me over your opinion that no one is debating you on, feel free. But I’m done here.

      • Jason Kerouac says:

        ALRIGHT! Everybody be cool!

        Derek, your example was EXTREME over-exaggeration. Joshua was talking about replacing team members with other team members. You used as an example replacing an iconic solo-character with what I’m PRETTY SURE is a non-existent knockoff. You’re also comparing minor characters who had almost no development as individuals with a movie’s major antagonist. Joshua’s missing your point, yes, but it’s because you’re comparing apples and Volvos.

        • The Gentleman says:

          NERD FIGHT!

          In all seriousness though, I think Derek made a good point. His example is not too far off since there have been a number of Joker knock-offs in comic history, two or three in Batman comics alone that are straight-up rip-offs. I guess a better but similar example would be Green Arrow and Batman on Smallville. Everyone wanted Batman to show up, but due to legal issues we had to settle for Green Arrow. And while it made sense (if one knows anything about Golden and Silver age Green Arrow) many people felt robbed by what seemed like a Batman stand-in, while others salivated over Green Arrow’s stunning good looks and great hair….I mean people simply saw a rich boy turned vigilante with cool gadgets and a Batman-like penchant for butting heads with Clark about various things and fighting crime (because, just like Batman, Ollie’s parents were DEEEEAAAAD). In any case, since I tend to ramble, my point is that there were many a fanboy who wanted to see Batman on screen. They wanted to see Bruce Wayne, not Ollie ollie oxen free. The very nature of cameos is part of this and is not limited to comics or comic-related stuff, so it’s understandable for people to feel this way.

          So in short, I agree with Derek and think the example wasn’t a bad one. I mean, there is a character that is as Derek described (Gaggy from Gotham City Sirens – he was Joker’s sidekick so he might as well be called Clown Boy as opposed to a name reminiscent of a bad porn film), let alone all the other imitators Joker has spawned in the DCU.

          This concludes my long and undoubtedly spelling error-filled but witty (if you actually read it) post. Have a wonderful night/day everyone.

          PS: No one ever calls me when these fight are going down. You all know how much I like to scream, rant, and insult like my life depends on it. 😉

          • Nick Brammer says:

            KWhack hit it on the head. TDK was a Joker story. Nobody else would have worked in that role.

            With First Class there are 50 billion mutants that could have been used. The X-Men haven’t had a real rigid roster, so in a reboot where Cyclops, Jean, Bobby, and Warren were already used, and wouldn’t have made sense, there were a myriad of mutants that could have fit the bill.

            • Jason Knize says:

              X-Men hasn’t had a real rigid roster….except the original 5. Also…this wasn’t a reboot. It’s been made clear. Yes…the original five would not have made sense in continuity as the “First Class” because they were already used….that’s why I called for a reboot.

  17. Lulu says:

    These idiots are stupid. Josh us right except the movie was amazing.
    ” I cherish my little toy biz toy that’s y I want it to be blah blah” shut it . It’s a movie!
    Am x men movie that went with other characters and open up a non comic book audience to something new , shut it. Silent k is a slob and his work shows it.

  18. Joshua says:

    I hate it when the morons agree with me.

  19. Nick Brammer says:

    @Knize I guess we ran out of room for comments above.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong at all. What I am saying is that looking at properties like X-Men and Avengers the founders aren’t necessarily the most popular members. They have so many members that with a movie doing their origins, where the prior continuity of the movie series doesn’t allow for the use of the original line up, it’s not as big a deal as say FF or even if they made a Defenders movie.

    I agree with you that the original 5 being in it would have been a better movie. Those characters have more emotional involvement in them than the lineup used. Unfortunately with this being a prequel of a series of films that have already been on the big screen it wasn’t plausible.

    My point about Ben was that he was a pilot. If you had to replace a member of the FF you replace Johnny or Ben. Reed and Sue are the heart of the FF. The book has suffered the most when those two have been gone. That’s why when they get a new member for FF it’s usually to replace those two.

    The First Class haven’t even been together in the comics for years. Until recently Warren really hasn’t been an interesting character. Jean is gone more often than not. Iceman too. Scott and Hank are the most used of the original X-Men. With other characters becoming more popular than the First Class they don’t have the same need to be used.

    I’ve also agreed with you that I really didn’t dig this movie. I liked Fassbender and Bacon and that’s about it.

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      I agree with almost everything you just said, Nick, EXCEPT the bit about Avengers. I’d argue that THAT roster is more important than the X-Men, too. Tony had the money. Hulk was the reason they all came together. Thor NEEDS to be there because of Loki. Okay, Jan and Hank are interchangeable, more or less. But the other three are key elements.

      Knize, here’s the difference between Reed and Sue vs. Scott and Jean. Reed is the guy responsible for the FF happening. He has to be there. Sue’s love for him is why her being there makes sense. Now, yes, Scott and Jean end up having a relationship. And yes, Warren (not Bobby) ends up being pulled into a love triangle. BUT… all that does is tie those three characters together. NONE of that ties them, in any way, directly to being the first X-Men. Do you not see the difference there? If, let’s just say, Scott were Charles’ biological son, that would be different. Scott would be there because it would be weird for Charles to pass him over, Jean would be there for the relationship with Scott, and Warren would be there to play off the two of them. THEN they’re rooted to the origin of the team. Instead, anything that happened to the team relevant to any one of the original members came MUCH later in continuity and had little to do with the team’s origin.

      And the reason I’m debating this point isn’t to say that you’re wrong about how you feel, so much as to try to offer you a different perspective. You’re saying you didn’t enjoy the movie because it didn’t have the true first class. I’m trying to offer reasoning behind that, in case it’s something you can appreciate that could potentially allow you to enjoy the movie further.

      Believe me… if someone had given me a good reason for Cyclops to die or Juggernaut to not be Xavier’s brother, I would have latched onto it as a chance to heighten my appreciation for X3. In my opinion, any arguments FOR either of those developments fell flat; much as our arguments seem to not be doing it for you.

      • Jason Knize says:

        We can go round and round on this all day…in the end, the five original X-Men, whom were part of the team because they were mutants and in turn, students of Xavier, make much more sense being part of that team than Sue and Johnny did in the Fantastic Four. Yet, BECAUSE all they had to offer was the fact that they were mutants, their inclusion in the original team was meaningless and without relevance? I’m not sore about First Class not showcasing the original five just because they were the original five, but because of their history together and the 50 years of interpersonal relationships and back story between those characters. Yknow all those goofball comments from Xavier about his hair in First Class? That was the beginning and end of any teases looking toward the future of the X-Men story. I’d argue those little teases are what make a prequel fun. Say what you will about the Star Wars prequels, but something they did right was the constant foreshadowing of future events in the story. Obi-Wan’s comment about Anakin “This boy will be the death of me”? Great stuff. The inclusion of the original 5 X-Men would have allowed for so much more of that foreshadowing than we were given. Show Warren guy-talking with Scott about trying to make a play at Jean, and Scott subtley rebuffing him, or one of them making a comment about her being “fiery”. Let Bobby be the annoying little brother. Give Hank a sequence in his lab, and he accidentally turns a hamster blue.

        Kerouac, I know you’ve blasted X-3’s use of Juggernaut, but you would’ve been happy had they thrown in a simple little exchange between him and Charles. Hell..there’s the bit in Iron Man 2 with Cap’s shield that teases the future dynamic between Cap and Iron Man. It’s these little things that would’ve made all of the difference for me in First Class. Sure, over the years, the X-Men have had numerous incarnations and teams…but the strongest teams have been the ones that have the best personal dynamics. Banshee, Havok, Beast, Mystique, Darwin and Angel haven’t been a part of any X-Men team in the comics that I can remember, and because of that, they don’t have the history and relationships that would’ve made their team feel “real”. Outside of Charles and Magneto, there were no relationships.

        • Joshua says:

          “but the strongest teams have been the ones that have the best personal dynamics. Banshee, Havok, Beast, Mystique, Darwin and Angel haven’t been a part of any X-Men team in the comics that I can remember, and because of that, they don’t have the history and relationships that would’ve made their team feel “real”. Outside of Charles and Magneto, there were no relationships.”

          This is a point I will concede. At no point did they ever feel like a cohesive, functioning team. I certainly felt nothing when Flying Stripper “betrayed” the team because we’d barely seen them interact, let alone have any kind of personal dynamic.

        • Jason Kerouac says:

          As with Josh, I can absolutely go along with this. I think ultimately, I was just happy to see Erik and Charles’ story done, and done well. Could there have been more? Yes. I was happy with what I got, but I CAN see what was missing for you, and I wish it could have been for you the experience it was for me.

  20. Bigtymin504 says:

    Finally saw this last night and thought it was great. Now I see why everyone is wetting their panties over Fassbender as Magneto. I don’t think anyone could have done a better job at conveying young Erik’s anger and torment over his Holocaust past. Just a total badass all around. He has future Bond written all over him! I also think McAvoy’s outstanding performance as Xavier is getting lost in the shuffle. You can see how his moral code about not invading peoples’ minds without their permission is a little more gray earlier in his life, which makes sense.

    Mystique and Beast were two other bright spots. Their outlooks on being different was a good contrast. Banshee’s personality and powers were all great too. I wish we could have seen more of Darwin (although if there are sequels I could see him coming back, he certainly could have adapted and survived that energy attack). And I thought Kevin Bacon was really good as Shaw. He played the role of the cold-hearted SOB really well. He treated poor Emma, who I quite enjoyed in this, like crap.

    My few gripes would be the Havok and Angel characters. Havok was just a jerk for jerks sake to Beast, and I thought it was stupid. At least be a lovable jerk. And Angel was just annoying. The way she turned on her new friends so easily, and her flying fight scenes were pretty bad.

    Overall very good film. I’d probably rank it right up there with X2 and X1. It seems like a lot of the problems people are having is continuity or whatever. Honestly, I don’t think it’s that bad. I don’t expect a movie franchise with dozens of different writers, directors, actors, etc. making different movies over a decade to be perfect continuity-wise. The only people that care are us comic fans, and considering how much we excuse continuity cherry-picking in our comics I would think we would be a bit more forgiving here.

  21. Lulu says:

    Well said Big, this is what gives fan boys a bad name. And what’s your problem with me Josh?
    I’m the moron? I just made my extreme opinion.

  22. Mary Staggs says:

    Man, this level of flaming douchebaggery is what I was hoping for in the comments of my Sucker Punch review. Leave it to K-Nice to throw a firecracker into a pile of rabid kittens.

    • Joshua says:

      I’ll shoulder the blame for not seeing Suckerpunch and therefore having no reason to comment. 😀

  23. D-Rock says:

    Let me preface this by saying that I really didn’t have a huge complaint with the choice of characters. They wouldn’t have been my first choice, but for the most part it worked out well enough. But just for shits and giggles, let me show you how you could have had the same exact movie using the original 5..

    Havok – could have been Cyclops. Really, there’s no difference. Every scene could have easily been Cyclops struggling to control his optic blasts.

    Darwin – could have been Iceman. During the attack on the CIA base, Iceman could have tried to save Angel by putting up an ice wall while Cyclops tried to shoot Shaw. Shaw then hits Iceman with the absorbed energy shattering him into a million pieces allowing for his “death”. Then next movie, Charles hears faint screams of Bobby calling for help. He decides to revisit the decimated base finding that the closer he gets, the stronger Bobby’s screams become. Once there, Charles connects with Bobby’s incorporeal mind. With their combined efforts, Charles helps Bobby focus his mind to reform his ice body. Yay, Bobby returns.

    “Angel” – could have been Warren. But before I go further, let’s accept one fact. We will most likely never see Apocalypse in a movie. So with that in mind, instead of Warren having feathers, when he activates his powers he goes right into his metal-winged, demonic form. Inner thoughts: “People get close to me because I’m the attractive rich kid, but when they see the REAL me I see their horror and disgust.. and I hate it”. This gives him the same angst “Angel” had. Warren goes on to side with Shaw. “Angel, how can you do this?”, “Angel’s protect MANkind, but that’s not me. Call me Archangel”. Boom, you can have the same air fight sequences with Warren shooting his metal feathers

    Banshee – could have been.. y’know what, fuck Jean. She’s an annoying twat and I liked Banshee’s performance 😆

    So there you go, same exact movie using 99% of the original team. Only now, you get more buy-in from those fans with similar views as Knize.

    And on that note, I’m out.

    • Jason Kerouac says:

      That’s… that’s actually pretty good. And the Scott/Warren/Sean love triangle would be SOOOO 2011.

    • Joshua says:

      I’m pretty much down with all of that, except for Iceman’s foregone resurrection. It’s a personal gripe, and I’m probably in the minority, but I hate it when a character is killed with the full intention to eventually bring him back. For me, it takes away any dramatic resonance the death may have to begin with. I remember an interview after Avengers Disassembled with Bendis where he said, “As soon as I killed Hawkeye I wanted to bring him back!” You know what an easy way to bring him back is? Don’t kill him!

      And I’d keep both Banshee and Jean 😀

  24. Bigtymin504 says:

    Did you just call Jeannie a twat? You’re dead to me.

    • Dr. Wade F'ing McNasty says:

      >Did you just call Jeannie a twat? You’re dead to me.
      >dead
      >Jean Grey

      I’ll pass on this one. It’s just too easy. 😉 lol

  25. Jason Knize says:

    I have to correct myself in my assertion that Emma Frost’s age compared to Wolverine: Origins was the most glaring continuity error, after re-watching the first 3 X-Films.

    In X1, Xavier has no idea about Magneto’s helmet. He’s all like, “WTF, something’s blocking me from dicking around Erik’s noodle!”

    In X3 (and in Wolverine), young, bald Charles is shown walking.

    The most disenchanting of all, however, is the relationship between Erik and Charles as shown at the opening of X3. They are en route to recruit Jean to the X-Men, and they are still best buds (both older than First Class, and Charles with the use of his legs). Also, as communicated by their dialogue, THIS was when they were recruiting the first team, which one would assume included Jean, Scott, and Beast in the least (rhyme not intended).

    So, they managed to not only eschew some of the in-movie continuity, but said “f— it” when they could have easily used the first five X-Men.

  26. Xavier says:

    Wasn’t this movie an attempt by the studio to start anew, in the new trend of having a trilogy with a set of actors and then starting a new trilogy afterwards because of how long it takes to film/release and aging of actors? The studio would want to hold onto a number of key elements for familiarity, but go with new and/or popular concepts (to the directors/writers viewpoint) in order to not lose crowds tired of the previous cast/ideas.

    I was disappointed only by the lost of shared continuity between the comicbooks and movies. Movies are setting their own, . . so we may never really see a faithful adaption, or maybe years from now.

  27. Christina (ZombieNightingale) says:

    I really wish Fox would just give up their rights to X-Men and let Marvel do their thing with the series in movies. All of the X-Men movies have mad me angry, from the pussy little woe is me Rogue in the first three to the fact they kill of Darwin in the last one made (Darwin can’t die, he’s Darwin!) I’ve pretty much given up on any X-Men movie being put out by Fox to ever run true to the comics or the characters them selves. I liked the last movie because of Magneto’s character.

  28. John-Michael (Batman25JM) says:

    I still love X-Men: First Class with all my heart. After the Nolan Batman movies it’s my favorite comic book movie.

    • Joshua says:

      I freely admit that the movie has a lot of script problems, especially for anyone weaned on the source material, but it’s a mostly well-made movie that serves as a good kick-off for a new series of movies. I understand and empathize with most of the complaints made against it, but there’s still more good than bad.

      I still wish we’d gotten a Fassbender Magneto prequel instead.

Leave a Reply