Digital Poetics has probably the most interesting take on the new X-Men movie:
Actually, this is a surrealist film, disguised as a blockbuster. I don't believe there's any difference today. X-Men: The Last Stand can only be understood as an experimental film--it just doesn't work on any other level. Its images aren't that different from something by Matthew Barney. Sure the pace of X-Men is faster, and it's less pretentious, and less aggressively self-conscious, but on the sheer level of images, it's as striking as the Cremaster cycle.
I think this is offered tongue-in-cheek. I'm not sure since the post is unfortunately too brief. I would love to read a lengthier essay on this idea--not just the review of X-Men, mind you, but also DP's larger question on why CGI is solely in the realm of the summer blockbuster when it could be applied in a provocatively artier way.
Now then, surrealism aside, I can't figure out what everyone's beef is with this movie. It moves too fast? (Hi, it's an action movie.) It tries to cover too much ground? (Hi, it's an X-Men movie—character and plot development has always been handicapped in this series, due to its sheer size.) Personally I thought it was great. Whatever complaints I had are niggling. Ultimately I had fun for a couple hours as I scarfed popcorn and watched silly blue people clamber about.
i know wy they don't use cgi - artists never have the money, honey!
Posted by: genny | June 07, 2006 at 04:55 AM
That's why artists should sell out more often.
Posted by: pgwp | June 07, 2006 at 07:56 AM