Slashdot Mirror

I'm guessing you haven't seen it. Don't base your opinion of a movie on a Katz capsule review. Try these reviews instead: Entertainment Weekly and New York Times (free login required.)

I found the movie very immersive, informative, and thought provoking. It lays out quite vividly something that most smart people already know: why the classic "war on drugs" approach can't work, because the enormous demand for drugs will create a supply, no matter what legal prohibitive steps are taken.

Instead of encouraging the people -- especially the young people -- to lead healthy drug-free lives, this movie basically says that it's useless to fight the drugs; give up already.

I think the move does exactly what you want: it suggests that a large part of the answer is up to us. This is highlighted quite clearly when the drug czar's daughter in the movie ends up in a rehab program (not really giving away any plot.)

You'll see in the reviews something that was made amply clear, in fact stated in so many words, in the movie: that the "war on drugs" is a war, in part, on the people we love: our own children, for example. The movie wasn't saying we should give up; rather, it presents a well-constructed view of the drug industry from a number of different angles, giving some insight into what drives it and why efforts against it have had limited success, and poses the question, is the approach being taking right now really the most effective one? If you're not even willing to discuss the question, then it's your motives that should be scrutinized, not Steven Soderbergh's.

Minor spoilers.

Was Magneto's character interesting? Yes.

(Just like in the comic book) Magneto isn't supposed to be evil and feared. That's what makes the character and conflict interesting - you can actually understand his viewpoint. Considering his (retroactively added) history, he sees Mutant registration as just the first step in the slipperly slope leading to the of branding mutants and herding them into concentration camps.

Was the threat perceived by Magneto actually a threat? Yes.

Congress may be ineffectual, but all it takes is one bill to start broad socioeconomic change and head down the slippery slope just mentioned. (e.g. - prohibition) To me, this means the plot is completely valid, and the conflict very believable. Think registering those who are feared is ridiculous? It happened to the Jews, was discussed with AIDS, and happens with sex offenders.

Was the plot silly? No.

Magneto wasn't trying to promote peace and understanding. And he wasn't trying to take over the world. He wanted to prevent the Mutant Registration Act from passing. Period. Not only here, but in other countries, as well. So, how did he go about doing this? Well, he figured, "If the leaders of each country are mutants, they will be a lot less likely to pass a law that discriminates and persecutes them." Maybe its a reach, but there is at least a line of reasoning behind it.

Fourth - Not all long time fans are "rabid." I've been reading the comic book for over 20 years. I don't mind minor changes to the X-universe, as long as it makes for a good movie. I don't mind if they to do away with spandex (contrary to what the idiot reviewer at EW thought). I don't mind altered histories. I don't mind Wolverine being too tall. He had claws and looks close enough to recognize. Good enough for me! All I wanted was a movie that wouldn't make me embarrassed to be an X-fan. I got that and more. I got a GOOD movie. It was a good action flick. It made me laugh a few times. It had some SFX that made me go "Wow!" That's all I expect from ANY movie. X-Men is a movie I can happily recommend to my friends. And hopefully they will walk out and go, "Wow. That was cool. So that's why you've been into the book for so long..."

And if nothing else, I now know how to prove I'm not a shapeshifting imposter to my friends...

The movie sucked because it has no plot. Really. It was being rewritten as late as two weeks prior to opening night. No, I didn't make this up. You can read it yourself in Entertainment Weekly. Robert Towne, the only credited writer in the movie, offers very candid comments on what happened behind the scenes. Why this move is so bad can be summarized in (Mr. Towne's quote): "'Hey, Robert, here are the action sequences, how'd you like to write us a story?' I had never even tried to write something that way before, and it was frightening."

I love thrillers. Well-crafted spy movies have always had a soft spot in my heart. Mission: Impossible was actually quite good if you followed the plot line, which wasn't as convoluted as it was touted to be. There was intrigue, and while the action sequences were very Hollywood, the script writers got all the spook-jargon straight (what's an NOC?). Those little touches of authenticity set M:I appart from other summer fare when it came out.

M:I-2 sucks simply because there is really no plot, as it was publicly stated by the only credited writer. The action sequences were too far over the top, and they don't come close to the action sequences in the latest Jackie Chan flick Shanghai Noon. Thandie Newton can't measure up either as a beautiful woman nor as an actress (think the latest James Bond flick: The casting of Denise Richardson was for pure eye candy). The movie sucks so much, that Oscar(TM) winner Anthony Hopkins, the only person delivering witty lines in the film, doesn't appear on the credits.

Movies are about escapism and fun. Other than the opening scene with Tom Cruise rock climbing, this movie provides neither. Save yourself $8.75 (if you live in San Francisco); wait for it to come out on video.

Have an excellent Memorial Day,

E