it's adamantium, not adamantine! You lost all your geek cred right there.

I guess I'm going to walk into this like I did with Return of the Jedi...I'm going to like it regardless of it's flaws, just because it's the last of the trilogy. Looking back at ROTJ, it's clearly an inferior film, so bad that I decided NOT to see it when it was re-released on the big screen back in the late 90's (wow, has it been that long?).

I may even be like one of the MacKenzie brothers in "Strange Brew," turning to a hockey player after his brother imitates Darth Vader..."He saw Jedi 17 times, eh?"

In fact, I'll dare say that the X-Men trilogy is VERY much like the 1st. Star Wars Trilogy (that episodes 4 thru 6) in that the middle one was probably the best film of the bunch. It had a very coherent story, no gaffs (like Halle Berry being over-dubbed in the 1st. X-Men film), and really played upon the 1st. movie very well. Empire was the same way, it was a thoroughly better written and directed film, played upon the 1st. one extremely well, etc.

I guess all I gotta say is...go take off, eh, and see that movie, before Magneto uses his incredible metal-bending abilities to steal your beer, you hosers...

I haven't seen the movie, but everything you describe sounds like a movie true to it's genre and right on target. As the third movie in a series, with characters known to most of the audience, how much explaining is really needed? Every movie is a balancing job, from what you describe, he sounds like he did the best possible with the material he had. I'm certain to go see it now.

And I agree.

(though it's adamantium, not adamantine)

Hey, nerd herd, adamantine is a perfectly legitimate adjective for Wolvie's claws. "His claws were adamantium" vs. "His claws were adamantine" is merely a predicate nominative vs. a predicate adjective. "Adamantium" picks out the actual (fake) substance whereas "adamantine" picks out that substance's properties--being very hard, and so forth. Yes, doofs, taste a bigger geek's wrath!

I couldn't conceivably care if she uses the word adamantium or adamantine, though the penchant for getting certain facts wrong in her review (I can think of lyrics in her review of "Rent") does seem to plague Ms. Zacharek.

I simply must beg to differ with her overall critique of the film as a mess of characters. Allow me first to grant her that the strength of the X-Men stories has been the interactions between its characters. The subtly intense attraction between Jean Grey and Wolverine, so obviously repressed but so vicerally powerful, helped define both characters in the earlier films.

But here I must point out that this is also a perfect example of just how convoluted the X-Men plots have been, and just how much has been accomplished with a few fleeting moments. Wolverine and Jean Grey never got sprawling scenes with which to build their relationship. It was almost universally a few fleeting scenes of sparse dialogue and restrained contact.

So it comes as no surprise that the third film would also reduce its characters to relatively fleeting moments, but having seen the film, I can say that the actors bring to those moments a depth and emotional poignancy that is frankly unmatched in the genre of comic book films. Especially given the vast insertion of characters, this is a strength, not a weakness.

Which, I suppose, brings me to my second critique. Ms. Zacharek, do you not recall the excess of characters in the earlier films? Kittie Pryde falling through her bed during the invasion of Xavier's School? Colossus shepherding his fellow students to safety?

The reality of the X-Universe is its vast quantity of engaging characters, something that makes it possibly the ideal film franchise, and given the nature of this film I'm not surprised we saw the number of "new" characters that we did. Indeed, this film's very purpose was to provide an emotional climax to the overarching storyline of the first two films while simultaneously setting up the franchise for future incarnations.

It did this perfectly, paving the way for younger X-Men to find their way into starring roles three or four years from now while allowing more established characters (Wolverine and the rumored Magneto prequel) to get their own vehicles. That it did this while also making incredibly bold (I won't spoil these plot points) moves with the franchise's established characters that had more of a hint of finality than anything you'd get from other Hollywood blockbusters is a testament to Brett Ratner's capacity as a franchise director.

Am I saying this film was perfect? Hardly. I too would have liked to see a deeper look at the interactions between Rogue and her young X-student colleagues, and its true that Halle Berry has never managed to fully develop the motivational heft of Storm's character. But these are quite few and far between in a film as good as this. For the genre, it really does set a standard that few films (Spider-Man 2 or Batman Returns, perhaps) have met.

I say give it more credit.

Ratner was given 16 months to script, cast, shoot, edit and release a major film. Not a lot of time; apparently the producers wanted to show up the Superman project by releasing their film earlier.

Remember that the first X-Men film was forced into release months before it was originally scheduled. Looks like the studio got into the habit of thinking that superhero flicks could be produced in less than 18 months.

Second BIG point: the film's running time was cut by fiat from above. The reasons why things are whizzing by so quickly is that the director hasn't any choice in the matter.

Last point: seems that the studio has decided that this is the last X-Men movie, so Ratner had to get everything in or let the subplots go unfinished forever.

funny, the reviwer heaps accolades on the director for the opening scene when she should be crediting the script writers who came up with the scene.

then this reviewer lays blame for all the movies problems on the director. maybe she forgot that they have to answer to the studio as the post below outlines