Ian Keldon;6147412[/QUOTE wrote:
FC's fight scenes are dynamic, integrated and fast paced. I-III's fight scenes are stagey, ponderously edited and underpowered.
FCs plot moves right along with only a few nods to the "mutant question" subplot that don't bring the story to a screeching halt while the characters sit around navel gazing about how crappy life is because they are mutants, unlike I-III.
FC's characterizations sparkle with wit and humor where appropriate (Charles, et al), and harsh intensity where required (Magneto). This is in contrast to the very subdued cast of I-III.
FCs cinematography is expansive and visually interesting. I and II look cramped and claustrophobic. III tried to open itself up visually, but still relied heavily on relatively tight, static shots most of the time.
The X-men as a viable movie franchise was unknown and Singer's approach was genius. People, and especially women, loved the understated super heroics, and the minimalist special effects and quite frankly, so did I! I loathe the Hollywood obsession with bigger and louder explosions and excessive CGI effects. It almost inevitably leads to a loss of characterisation and plot.
The Dark Knight is a hugely enjoyable movie but that is in spite of the massive explosions. Two-Face's character would have been just as compelling if they had stuck to the minimalist guns of the first movie and just slapped on some scar make-up.
I do agree that the fight scenes in the first two X-men movie were too ponderous with far too much focus on Wolverine and credit where it is due, the group dynamic at the end of X3 worked for me. FC did quite well in this regad too.
However, dark, moody, character-driven, and minimal special effects is how I would prefer my hero movies. I'm nervous that the clips from the Avengers look too fast-cut and CGI laden. If too much of the movie is like that, it won't be good.