FINAL X-MEN 2 ROUND-UP POST: Guaranteed spoiler-free.

Jacob Levy writes, “The movie is less Wolverine-Centric than the first one was (and much less Rogue-centric), leaving much more room for other characters.” I think this is the same as what I meant when I said none of the characters really got developed. A movie with that many explosions has limited time: It has to choose between focusing on some characters at the expense of others, or diffusing its focus among a big group none of whom gets adequately developed.

So that’s a substantive aesthetic criticism. A non-substantive, totally personal addendum: If it were my decision, the movie would have focused on and developed, in this order, Wolverine (mmm), Nightcrawler (you knew I’d say that), Rogue, Jean Grey, and Iceman. The heck with the rest of ’em.

Yes!!! It is like “Wrath of Khan”!!! But I don’t mean that in a good way. (I liked TWOK but I didn’t want to see it again, if you know what I mean.)

I can definitely see how the many “cameos” from the comic books, the nods to familiar plots and characters, would be very cool for “X-Men” fans. I missed ’em. That’s my fault.

In re my previous post, let me also say that Cerebro is just too powerful to be dramatically compelling. Cerebro is central to the plot and it mucks up the plot.

And at some point, you know, movies about how noble it is to be Different are their own form of conformity, and produce their own form of self-righteousness among those who perceive themselves as noble outcasts. That’s the constant danger the “X-Men” series needs to avoid. I don’t know that either of the movies have successfully negotiated it yet. Probably we need at least one fully-developed character who is a reg’lar human.

Both movies, but especially the second one, managed to be morally complex without being relativist. There were bad guys and good guys, but many of the bad guys were understandable, many of the good guys were mistaken, lots of flaws and lots of things to admire on both/all “sides.” That was very, very cool.