(no subject)

Date: 2014-05-28 01:55 pm (UTC)
Huh, interesting. With regards to the second point, I really felt it was about Mystique, and her choice, and was really pleased with that; I think that was one of the first things I said to [livejournal.com profile] theweaselking when we walked out of the theatre. Charles was basically there to relay the message and to be on probation as not-a-controlling-asshole and when he did that, he was a decent secondary character.

(With, admittedly, a line about bad acid that made me crack up.)

With regards to the first point: I disagree about the gratuity of the violence; I think the point is to establish that the situation as it exists is horrible, and untenable, and that horrible deaths is an effective way to do that. I will grant cheap, but I will argue gratuitous.

I do think it was heavier than anyone would reasonably expect for a PG-13 movie. I will note that up until this moment, I had not considered the movie's rating in the slightest. (I'm not saying people shouldn't consider it! I'm saying that I haven't had to look at movie ratings in years, only notice in passing that a movie has an R rating if I notice that it has (1) a red-band trailer that (2) I am seeing right now, and then promptly forget it.)

So going in as someone who was completely oblivious of the movie's rating and had gone in expecting to see a movie that was going to establish "this is the horrible genocidal future", I was unsurprised ETA: and felt it was doing exactly what I expected in the visual language of the genre.

I would have been happy with another or a different attempt to establish it, but I understand why they didn't go with that.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

theweaselking: (Default)theweaselking
Page generated Jun. 29th, 2025 10:38 am