I think I can safely say that X-Men 2, and surely The Matrix Reloaded delivers quite possibly the best a big budget sequel can. As far as X2 itself is concerned, it's bigger, better and a damn sight longer (clocking in at a welcome and healthy 2hrs and fifteen minutes).

In a recent issue of American Cinematographer Bryan Singer dubbed X-Men 2 his "empire strikes back"... In some ways, that's not too bad a way to look at it. Things get darker and a little more serious. The attack on the school is really quite a finely crafted and scary moment leaving you on the edge of your seat, but from the get go, from the film's opening with Nightcrawler sprawling through the hallways of the White House the film tends to grab you and not let go.

Everything established first time round really progresses wonderfully and naturally on screen, and the events of the sequel are really not at all long after the events of the first film. For this reason, it's almost safe to say that if you've not seen the first film the goings on of the sequel will be rather lost on you.

X-Men 2 reunites John Ottman with Bryan Singer in what I have always seen to be a marvelous partnership. It's somewhat of a blessing having a talent on board who is not only the composer of the musical score but the editor of the movie too.

I won't beat about the bush and come out and say that I adored John Ottman's score for X-Men 2. It's both thrilling and at my points, incredibly beautiful and charming. I know his coming aboard has been greatly anticipated by many, but they may be surprised to find that not even he chooses to deliver an overly bombastic score to the picture. The orcehstra put together is vast, you feel the scale of what has been thrown together and some of the choir work is just to die for.

Ottman's theme for the heroes comes out in force though he is smart not to let it outstay its welcome and let it strike up every time of the X-Men does something. The finest presentations of the main theme I found were, not surprisingly, in the opening titles and end credits (which play out with a superb suite). When the film hits its third act, Ottman really has some terrific fun.

It's in the third act that out heroes are brought together too. The film still very much puts its main focus on Wolverine and his past but everyone else is given ample time to strut their stuff on screen. It is credit to John Ottman's skills as an editor as something like this, with so many characters (Nightcrawler, Pyro and Iceman are thrown in as major players against the already existing cast and lets not forget Brian Cox as well!), this film could have been all over the place. As it stands, everything seems just right.

X-Men 2 is just a rare treat. A sequel to a summer blockbuster that takes things to a higher level and honestly does not disappoint. I'm thrilled with it, far, far more than I ever could have hoped. Fox have a great thing here and for me it stands head and shoulders above the other comic to film adaptations thus far. I'd hate to see the studio lose the team involved. I'd question the series ever continuing on without the involvement of the talented cast and crew who have given us both X Men movies. I hope the team can stay together and deliver one or two more adventures and keep the series on a high. Hollywood law dictates the studio would take it further, so we shall see.

Dan

PS: Colossus has a great cameo that just makes you go "oooh"

Dan (UK)

NP: Nothing, but wishing the X2 score was out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Camillu:
Thankfully this is getting an international release this week, so I'll be able to catch it along with you spangled banner folks.

---

Then, actually, you're getting to see it before U.S.

X2 won't be out for 2 more weeks on this side of the pond.

And, Dan(UK) , thanks for the report. You've just made the next two weeks unbearably long for me!!

Consult your friendly X Men 2 website for more.

Dan (UK)

Controversially though, I preferred Michael Kamen's music in the original rather than John Ottman's sequel score. Yes, it's cool (it's Ottman for god's sake!), but, I don't know, I missed the Kamen sound. Kamen used a blend of electronic and orchestral, whereas Ottman uses a standard orchestra and a choir.

Ottman's X2 score is huge but I found it lacking a main theme, something many complained about in the original (which I disagree with). A theme is only heard strongly in the opening and closing titles.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone will disagree with me. I did like the score but I didn't LOVE the score - put it down to personal taste. Everyone will agree that the movie rocks, though.

On a personal level I was more than satisfied with the score I must admit, but I will say this... I've always been a fan of Kamen's score for the first film and actually find that, however different, the scores to both X Men films actually compliment each other quite nicely in their tones and what they set out to do. Ottman's score is different, pleasingly so (I felt) but not so radicaly different in the sense of going from Elfmans Batman to Goldenthal's...

I think a CD release of about an hour would be very satisfying indeed. If the track listing put up by Dan G stands as listed (or even with minor changes) then the album should still carry the best of the cues.

I wanted to add a little note about the film's violence levels too. They're pretty high frankly, not sure if you agree Steve.

With it's 12a rating here in Blighty and its PG 13 stateside you've got some heavy gunplay, some pretty intense hand to hand combat with cuts and blood, three utterings of the word "sh*t" and some violence toward children during the attack on the school. It surely pushes the bounderies of what is perhaps acceptable with its rating.

Nightcrawler and the twins in the Matrix sequels will surely tie for the award of "best teleporting trick in a 2003 summer movie" it must be said.

Dan (UK)

--Brian

Thanks for that great piece. I enjoyed it, thoroughly. Definitely looking forward to the film. Whenever I see your name, on a post, I will definitely be reading! Thanks, again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Brecher:
Wolverine might have just as well stabbed everything that moved.

---

Good it's going out there uncut either way, but I still think it's pretty heavy for a 12a (more suited to the original straight 12 rating).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Brecher:
Amazingly the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) have passed X Men 2 as a 12a with no cuts. Their utter lack of consistency in what is ok and what isnt in films continues to baffle me.

Good it's going out there uncut either way, but I still think it's pretty heavy for a 12a (more suited to the original straight 12 rating).

Dan

---

I'm just curious, Dan, how does the rating system work in the UK? I mean, how does it compare/correspond to the US rating system? Would a 12 in the UK, be like a PG in the US or a PG-13?

The next step up is 12a; this is a revised rating introduced last summer somewhat controversial I might add.

Back in 1989 when Batman first came out, our censors/ratings board (the BBFC) introduced the 12 certificate. This meant no one under the age of 12 was admitted to see this film even if they were accompanied by someone over that age.

Last summer, Spider-Man caused quite a stir amongst the under-12s in the UK as it carried the 12 rating. Far, far too many children’s TV shows had been covering Spider-Man and this lead of upset and confusion from the under 12s as to why they could not see the movie. After a lot of fuss, late last summer saw Spider-Man re-issued with a new rating known as 12a, which from then on was to replace the old 12 rating completely.

12a is much like PG-13, but instead of anyone under thirteen having to be accompanied by an adult, here with 12a it is of course, twelve.

The next step up is our 15 rating which can sometimes be the equivalent of both the US PG-13 rating, but is most commonly given to movies that would carry an 'R' rating stateside. The 15 certificate orders no one under that age be allowed admittance even if accompanied by an adult.

Then we have the 18 certificate which again can also be given to movies that got the 'R' rating in the US, and sometimes even the US's NC-17 rating. Unlike NC-17, the 18 rating isn’t looked upon as a bad thing.

I am actually rather fond of our ratings system, but 12a I am not keen on as it is too much like the US ratings approach, which I don't really like. Simply put, the idea you could take a 7 year old into Pulp Fiction doesn't sit well with me at all.

That's not to say everyone in the US would do that, thankfully most people are still smart enough to know what kids should be seeing at what age, but there are people often foolish enough to take advantage of the freedom the light restrictions the US ratings carry. The freedom the US ratings give as far as admittance is concerned really seems to allow a number of people to make incredibly reckless decisions and I am sad to see things heading that way in England.

Studios love this system of course, little care who sees it, its another ticket sold if a babysitter cant be found and you’ve got to take little nine year old Billy into Basic Instinct. I’m reminded of last years releases of The Bourne Identity which got the 12a rating here. Matt Damon was on the radio really giving the rating a hard time and pleading people think twice about taking children under twelve. I am sure Universal loved him for that.

I've seen the problem develop with 12a now here in the UK. Die Another Day carried the rating, and my second viewing of that movie saw a woman with her infant children in the auditorium. Infants! She had a baby and a child who could have been no more than five, and that little one was running up and down the isles. Now, Die Another Day is incredibly violent for its rating and it is also one of the most atrociously loud movies I have heard in recent times, a simply appalling sound mix. What damage it could do to an infant’s ears I'd dread to think...

Now whilst I am fond of our ratings system (beside the new 12a) the way our ratings board go about their approach to censorship continues to baffle me. Last year the British Board of Film Classification actually revised what they would allow more of in movies with certain ratings. Sex in film has never been a big taboo here like it is with the MPAA sometimes and the announced they would be a little lighter on sexual content in 12a and most notably 15 rated releases.

Forms of violence on the other hand were (and still are in some cases) picked at frame by frame by the BBFC. So in the US, sex is quite a problem on screen, violence less so. In the UK, flip that around. Martial arts is the biggest problem with the BBFC. They’ve eased up on it a bit, as recently as 2001 in fact they lifted their ban on the nunchaka weapon seen in countless martial arts movies. They hated these along with ninja stars for some reason. Hand to hand martial arts combat was also given a bit of a rough ride and in 199 The Matrix suffered from 10 seconds of cuts due to heavy hand to hand combat.

Now, 10 seconds may not sound like much, but count that in your head and remind yourself that for every second runs 24 frames of film. I’ve never ever seen the UK cut of the Matrix, I was in New York in 1999 and saw it prior to its UK release, and after that I subsequently imported the US DVD and saw the movie theatrically again in LA in 2001 as an IMAX blow up. From what I have been told, the bathroom fight with Lawrence Fishburne and the agents was cut down heavily as was Neo’s face off at the train station with Agent Smith. Given they’ve been a bit more easy going on violence in movies rated 15 and over since last year I am hopeful The Matrix Reloaded will pass uncut under their new regulations. It will be a 15 cut, or a 15 uncut. We shall see, they should be rating it in the coming weeks.

Finally, I get to my point about my frustration in their lack of consistency regarding what movies are allowed to get away with what. The BBFC have always head a problem with head butts (a blow from one mans head to another)… In 2001, Fellowship of the Ring was passed as a PG here, uncut and carried a head butt during Aragon’s scuffle with Lurtz. Last May, Attack of the Clones was also given a PG rating yet the head butt during Obi Wan’s fight with Jango Fett was removed from the UK version. This past December, The Two Towers was granted a 12a rating with no cuts and carried two head butts.

When asked why such acts of violence were ok in the two Lord of the Rings features but not Episode II, the BBFCs response was “kids don’t play Lord of the Rings but they play Star Wars”…. Kids don’t play Lord of the Rings? They do now…

Sorry that was so long. You'd be forgiven if you gave up at "Well".

quote:

---

While at film school, Ottman originally concentrated on directing. It wasn't until later that he found himself moving towards an earlier love, music.

"It's how life is; you go along and then you end up doing the things you least expect, at least with me that's the case. I was a film score geek who would be the first guy in line to get the next John Williams soundtrack, but I never expected to be writing film scores," he says. "I wanted to direct movies and hire my idol, who is Jerry Goldsmith, to score them for me. That was my fantasy. Then low and behold I ended up doing them myself, which is bizarre."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crono/Kyp:
Good interview

---

Yup! Just a reminder that as they come in, all the different interviews/articles with Ottman will be listed on his website here: http://www.johnottman.com/html/news.html

(scroll down to the Interviews/Articles section)

And if you happen to catch an article we missed, send it over!

Didn't have as much of a "bang" as I had hoped, and it's ALWAYS sad to hear cues from the scoring session get a little choppy in the final cut.

But that being said, it was a lot of fun, the audience clapped a LOT, and I can't wait to see how it fares at the box office!

Wolvie, Nightcrawler, Prof X, and Magneto stand out. Hell, even Storm was good this time around.

I think fans will be elated by the cameos and the build up Singer and Company play with for the next film.

This is the first film since Two Towers that made me what to get right back in line and see it again! But, alas, I have to wait.

Otmman's score was definitely a vast improvement over Kamen's. However, the film still lacks a good theme.

Make mine Marvel and make it a MUTIE!

MV Gerhard

quote:

---

Originally posted by La La Land Records:
However, the film still lacks a good theme.

---

Michael,

I'll have to disagree with you there.... I think the main theme (while it's not overplayed in the film), is pretty kick-ass, and memorable.

The music was very good. The action cues were great, but, of course I would pay more attention to those since I love action cues. And, I must say, I really liked the use of Mozart's Dies Irae for the opening sequence. It worked wonderfully. And make sure you stay for the end credits just to hear more of John Ottman's music. It's great.

This is a movie I would definitely go see multiple times.

Bradley

P.S. Mystique's coolness factor jumps 10 degrees in this movie. She's almost a cool as Wolverine now.

P.S.S Nightcrawler RULES!!! (IMHO )

X2 attempts to juggle far too many characters and plot points to make for rivetting drama. And all this potpurri of happenstance is particularly irksome when the editor elects to cross-cut story elements that don't intersect on the timeline, or deliberately quashes dramatic tension by cutting away just as a sequence reaches the boiling point.

For me, it transpires like a series of teasers. There is no dramatic convergence. The story doesn't lead anywhere except to the next action scene...and then the one after that...and the one after that.

Apparently, the filmmakers drew inspiration from ESB and ST:II, but what they seemed to have overlooked was that the stories of both these forerunners were predicated on our investment in the characters; not in what they did or experienced, but who they were as people in the face of their experiences. I still have no idea who these curious people with more curiouser powers are beyond some rudimentary 90290 pap.

I never did get much into comic books....

As for the score: it's a step forward from Kamen's synthetic noodling, but the biggest orchestra in the world still can't cover up a pausity of ideas. Not coincidently, the score resembles the same bits-and-pieces assemblage as the film's (anti)structure.
There simply is nothing which ties all these pieces togethor.

As for quoting Ebert...that doesn't impress me at all. I never much cared for what his opinion was on anything.

Having read X-men in it's prime in the 70's and 80's, I think the filmmakers did an admirable job of translating the comic book and it's characters and yes, storyline, into a film version.

Ottman's editing was VERY exciting and I felt this film juggled the cross cutting in a far superior manner than the last 3 Star Wars movies.

And Ottman's score was VERY exciting in the film as well. Much more envigorating that what Kamen was "allowed" to do for the first film.

Definitely looking forward to future X-men films.

quote:

---

that doesn't impress me at all

---

I wasn't attempting to impress anyone...merely sharing a comment by another viewer that sorta summed up my own thoughts on the film.

No need to get defensive.

Still, having now seen X2 a second time, the film clearly falls apart for me with all that toing and froing down murky corridors, and the countless "Oh my God"(s) from the tour guides in that dam climax. For superheroes...they sure do stand around looking dumbfounded alot.

It makes DAREDEVIL look like the insignificant superhero runt that it is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SPQR:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>that doesn't impress me at all<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't attempting to impress anyone...merely sharing a comment by another viewer that sorta summed up my own thoughts on the film.

No need to get defensive.

Still, having now seen X2 a second time, the film clearly falls apart for me with all that toing and froing down murky corridors, and the countless "Oh my God"(s) from the tour guides in that dam climax. For superheroes...they sure do stand around looking dumbfounded alot.

The first half of the film is fun though.

---

Funny for a film you didn't seem to like, you went to see it TWICE.

As for impressing...I don't find Ebert's "impressions" on ANY film impressing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SPQR:
Actually, I didn't have to spend a dime.

---

No, but James never said anything about you spending money, either. He said that you went to see it twice. Doesn't your TIME count for something?? (I know mine does!)

If you didn't like the movie, why see it twice? (Even if it was free?)

quote:

---

f you didn't like the movie, why see it twice? (Even if it was free?)

---

Good question Dan, but I might ask you though how you'd justify your time asking that question to begin with.

Anyway, if I find I'm not living up to the hype on my initial viewing I will sometimes review a film again to better determine if subjectivity is clouding the view, or, whether my response(s) is actually due to a commensurate flaw in the film. A sort of experiment in objectivity, as it were. And, as I previously stated above, the dam sequence sinks it for me. It reminded me of the last time I chanced upon an episode of that curiously modest success called Buffy: the Vampire Slayer

Fight. Run. Stop. Debate....
Fight. Run. Stop. "Oh My God"...
Fight. Run. Stop. Argue...
Run. Stop. Fight. Cry.
And so on...
And so on...
And...

And, just for the sake of it: it's statistical impossibility that Ebert could be wrong all of the time.

LOVE IT
LOVE IT
LOVE IT

with that said....

Why must Xavier be a sissy?
No REMY? I'll be waiting for his delete scene in the DVD release. YEAH his scene was cut! BOOO

quote:

---

Originally posted by SPQR:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>f you didn't like the movie, why see it twice? (Even if it was free?)<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question Dan, but I might ask you though how you'd justify your time asking that question to begin with.

Anyway, if I find [b]I'm not living up to the hype on my initial viewing I will sometimes review a film again to better determine if subjectivity is clouding the view, or, whether my response(s) is actually due to a commensurate flaw in the film. A sort of experiment in objectivity, as it were. And, as I previously stated above, the dam sequence sinks it for me. It reminded me of the last time I chanced upon an episode of that curiously modest success called Buffy: the Vampire Slayer

Fight. Run. Stop. Debate....
Fight. Run. Stop. "Oh My God"...
Fight. Run. Stop. Argue...
Run. Stop. Fight. Cry.
And so on...
And so on...
And...

And, just for the sake of it: it's statistical impossibility that Ebert could be wrong all of the time.

Happy viewing all![/B]

---

I never said Ebert was WRONG...I just said I didn't care what he thought. I find it interesting that he and Siskel got so popular that whatever they thought became so important. That thumbs up & down thing was like they were some friggin Roman emperors deciding which films lived and died at the box office. Gimme a break.

My belief has ALWAYS been if you think a film is going to interest you GO SEE IT no matter what anyone else says! Then decide for yourself.

Even the public isn't right about things all the time either. That's how crap like this reality TV stuff and those stupid teen comedies have become so popular even though they lack any substance whatsoever.

James

quote:

---

Even the public isn't right about things all the time either. That's how crap like this reality TV stuff and those stupid teen comedies have become so popular even though they lack any substance whatsoever.

---

AMEN!

I saw the film yesterday and couldn't spot these - where were the references?

And did anyone else spot any of the 'X's left lying around? I only saw the one on the 20th Century Fox logo.