
I’m “biast” (con): nothing
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
Haha, remember when, in 2016’s X-Men: Apocalypse, the third episode in this current batch of movies about superpowered mutants, someone said, “Everyone knows the third movie is always the worst,” in a sort of preemptive meta deflection of the negative criticism it seemed to know was to come? Yeah, well, joke’s on everyone now, because Dark Phoenix, the fourth installment, is even worser still.
This is a lazy treadmill of a science-fiction action morality play that wastes a terrific cast of big talents — they look as bored as we are watching them — and has less than nothing to say. It trots out the occasional cliché of a “message” while neglecting to ensure that anything going on is remotely connected to that truism, and sometimes hypocritically undercuts itself. Explosions and superbattles trump all here, and yet even they are numbingly dull, tedious games of mutant checkers. Every character is nothing but a one-dimensional pawn on Phoenix’s board.

That starts with Jean Grey herself (Sophie Turner: Game of Thrones, Barely Lethal), one of the most powerful mutants — she can read minds and is intensely telekinetic — and the putative protagonist here. Except screenwriter Simon Kinberg apparently has no idea how to tell a woman’s story unless it is filtered through the eyes of the men around her. Mentors — Charles Xavier/Professor X (James McAvoy: Glass, Sherlock Gnomes) — and lovers — Scott Summers/Cyclops (Tye Sheridan: Ready Player One, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse) — and colleagues — Hank McCoy/Beast (Nicholas Hoult: Tolkien, Mad Max: Fury Road) — and admirers — Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto (Michael Fassbender: The Snowman, Alien: Covenant)… they all spend a shit-ton of time talking about Jean and how much they love and respect her and how worried that are about her seemingly going evil, after absorbing a strange interstellar force cloud while on a mission to Earth orbit to rescue a space-shuttle crew. (Raven/Mystique [Jennifer Lawrence: Red Sparrow, mother!] does actually talk to Jean, rather than at her or around her, but the movie quickly shuts Raven up.)

“You have no idea who I am!” Jean cries in despair at one point. Neither does her own damn movie. She is shockingly indistinct. Later someone will snidely inform her that her “emotions” are a “weakness” (you already know what her response to that will be), as if that were even the shallowest of glosses on what is happening to her. It isn’t. A less generous interpretation of where her emotions take her is that the movie is frowning on her fully justifiable anger at all the men surrounding her who have lied to her, gaslighted her, and treated her with condescension. I’d love to see what a female filmmaker would do with Jean Grey’s journey. It might look something like the brilliantly feminist Captain Marvel, with which this movie shares some broad themes. (It also shares shapeshifting reptiles as the villains, led by an absurdly underused Jessica Chastain [Molly’s Game, Miss Sloane], though here they are generic aliens who merely generically want to take Earth for themselves. *yawn*) Kinberg also wrote 2006’s X-Men: The Last Stand, the worst of the batch in the previous cycle of mutant movies, which was also concerned with Jean Grey’s “Dark Phoenix” storyline (picked up from the comics). One wonders why he got another shot at it, particularly if this was the best he could come up with. (One also wonders why Kinberg, with zero feature-film-directing experience, got to graduate to his first such gig with this movie, which cost $200 million and yet couldn’t be more bland. Except that Hollywood seems to be falling over its own feet to give white men such juicy opportunities, which happen constantly.)

At a cursory glance, it seems as if Phoenix is about to come full circle, retroactively catching up to where we began with the story of these Marvel Comics mutants: the bulk of the movie is set in the early 1990s, just a few years before 2000’s X-Men. But not only does Phoenix end up wildly contradicting the earlier cycle of movies — this now indisputably set in a different timeline — it cannot even keep itself squared with its own cycle, consisting of, quick recap: 2011’s First Class, 2014’s Days of Future Past, and the aforementioned Apocalypse, from 2016. This does not feel like it is set in the early 1990s; it might as well be today, but that would be even more deeply problematic. For none of these characters seem to have aged since the early 1960s setting of First Class! The older characters should all be in their 50s and 60s. Magneto was in a Nazi concentration camp as a child! Beast and Mystique were in their very late teens in First Class, 30 years ago! None of this cast is anywhere near old enough to be playing these characters.
That’s not merely a problem of how everyone looks; much more profoundly, it is accompanied by the sense that little time has actually passed, that these characters have not, in fact, changed or grown over the course of decades. Dark Phoenix is appallingly insubstantial, for all that it wants to consider very dark matters. It has no weight to what it supposes is its human drama: it has no real interest in it. It cannot even be bothered to address the most basic idea that we’ve come to expect from comic-book stories, the ethics of using one’s superpowers. Lip service is paid to it, as in how Xavier is keen to show his mutants to be useful and not a threat to normal humans, but the moment it’s time for a bang-up fight, that’s all forgotten, and injury to innocent bystanders and massive property damage be damned. There might have been a time when summertime would-be blockbusters could get away with crap like this, but that time is long past.
see also:
• X-Men: First Class (review)
• X-Men: Days of Future Past movie review: time for hope
• X-Men: Apocalypse movie review: everyone knows the third movie is always the worst


















The X-Men franchise bends over backwards to placate feminists, and then feminists complain about it when the result is garbage, blaming all the men for it.
Hilarious, and yet oh-so-predictable.
I’m sorry your mother never loved you.
I’m sorry your father and uncle touched you while you were young.
Did you make a whole sock puppet account just to write that? Well, I’m sure it was your best.
Classy. :-(
I faulted it for being unimaginative and trite. But then it’s not like my quip was Oscar Wilde quality.
Well, in all fairness, it’s not like the post you were responding to was exactly Shakespearean in quality.
I’m sorry that’s the best you’ve got. It must suck being you.
A man wrote and directed this movie, so a man absolutely gets the blame for it. Maybe the studio should have given this project to a woman.
If you think this movie is bending over backwards to placate feminists, I have some bad news for you about what that would actually look like…
Yeah, but to be fair, if the movie was equally as bad by a female director, I’d put the blame on her too. And I understand it’s his directional debut, but he knew the risks going in. The same goes for whoever was given the mantle of directing this movie, be it male, female, whatever. A bad movie is a bad movie regardless of who’s behind the silver screen calling the shots.
The movie is not really bad on its own merits but it not good. A lot of the points raised in this review not really valid, The reviewer misread what Charles did to Jean and forgot that this is an ensemble X-Men movie instead of a Jean Grey solo.
You are welcome to your interpretation. But it doesn’t invalid mine.
Speaking of that, I made a long post addressing a lot of you points that got marked as spam. I’ll post an image of it.


That’s a really long post, which is probably why Disqus thought it was spam.
Why? A man wrote and created both Jean Grey and the Dark Phoenix storyline to begin with. It was always told through the lens of Cyclops and his anguish at what was consuming Jean, and is one of the seminal and most celebrated stories within all of comics history.
Also, practically all of the finest iconic female characters in film (Ripley, Sarah Conner etc.) were all written and directed by men as well. According to your logic, all of these fantastic female portrayals fail because men created them.
Your argument doesn’t make any sense in the real world.
What, you mean Captain Marvel, that movie which caused enough of a fan backlash to make Marvel virtually write her out of Endgame?
The truth is that placating feminists produces garbage, including all the pandering which has crept into the X-Men franchise, such as the elevation of a B-list female villain to the leadership of the hero team just because it produces a squeal of delight from weak-minded women. It’s not my fault that you can’t see it.
Hollywood is all about making money, not about “placating” anyone–let’s get that straight. For you to claim it’s “placating feminists” is really stupid.
Please, please, for the love of God, don’t reply to the really persistent trolls after we’ve finally gotten them to go away. Sometimes they come back, like Beetlejuice when you call his name.
Also, while the “placating feminists” argument is quite stupid, I’d like to believe, against mounting evidence, that some people in Hollywood chose their careers because they genuinely want to make good movies—even if they also make money along the way—and genuinely support social progress. It’s really difficult to break in to Hollywood, after all, and it helps if you have real talent and real conviction.
I think MAJ banned this particular one. I recommend the “block” option as well; seeing “this user is blocked,” in place of whatever stupidity is being spewed, is a beautiful thing.
I mean, sure, we can blame those men too if you want. But the source material is very distinct from an adaptation of it.
So fuck those guys too for thinking that a woman’s story is only worth telling through a man’s eyes.
Nope. But think about it some more and you might get it. Or just listen to women tell you why some of these stories don’t work. You might learn something.
You’re hilarious. I cannot even begin to count all the things wrong with this statement. I’m not your feminist teacher and I have better ways to spend my time, so I’ll leave you to learn on your own. If you even want to.
Are you suggesting that placating fragile white male egos never produces garbage?
Late reply, but I want to say that definitely wasn’t the case with this film. Jean not only had vastly more screen time than any of the male characters but she was also written like a traditional protagonist. That stuff with the men was just a subplot.
We see Jean struggle to achieve a goal(avoid hurting people ala Bruce Banner) and is changed by the experience. I’ve read the comic and Jean doesn’t become the Dark Phoenix until at the end of the movie, that was her character arc. Similar to how Arthur Fleck didn’t become the Joker until at the end of the Joker movie. There is a breakdown/analysis that proves this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd4LsOfvkjs
Found it weird that people thought a subplot was the main plot. Seemed like cognitive bias at work.
Don’t you have a Straight Pride March you need to attend?
Not at all. Just like my commitment to actual equality, I don’t feel the need to shout it from the rooftops just to gain attention. I pity the people who feel the need to virtue-signal, including yourself.
Ironic, since you’ve been feeling the need to plaster your abusive comments all over the message boards here and elsewhere. You definitely get off on picking fights, and you’re tiresome as fuck.
Blocked. Bye.
When I consider the fact that the original creator of the Dark Phoenix story arc — Chris Claremont — was once considered to be a feminist back in the day — and still is considered to be a feminist today — I can’t help but find this to be an odd argument.
Though I probably should consider it to be hilarious, and yet oh-so-predictable…
If anyone wants a taste of the lengthy, elaborate story that these Fox movies keep trying to cram into a couple hours, comicbookgirl19’s channel is publishing a remastered version of the X-Men Epic History episodes that summarize the Phoenix and Dark Phoenix comic arcs. They have great production values (cool parallax panels) and are worth a watch if only to see that not only does this movie fail on its own terms, it also fails spectacularly as an adaptation – and this is Fox’s second swing at the material. Maybe in ten years, Disney/Marvel will finally manage to get on base.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sko6UqTAy5Q
Only if Disney completely abandons their Woke agenda. Good luck holding your breath for that one.
MaryAnn drop dead and stay away from movie reviewing.
Your opinion may get you a paycheck but your perspective is worse than
a bucket of rotten chum.
You seem great.
Wait. Wait. They let the guy who wrote the last travesty that tried to do Dark Phoenix give it another go? The same guy? And they let him direct?
Okay well the reasons for that decision don’t make any sense, but the outcome of it sure does!
Makes no sense, but keeps happening. It reminds me of a panel in Sarah Cooper’s funny/depressingly accurate book:

This one seems apropos as well:

This attitude of yours is precisely why you don’t get good female characters anymore. Funny how Ellen Ripley (and Vasquez) didn’t need feminist rhetoric to be both kick-ass and beloved by the same male audience you think is the problem.
1986 called.
That;s it. Just a call from 1986.
The year Aliens was released.
In what way are Ripley and Vasquez not feminist?
No one is saying that they’re not feminists. But we’re talking about characters that appeared in a movie released in 1986.
And most people I know considered 1986 to be a long time ago.
Heck, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was considered to be a popular feminist icon back in the day. But that character’s show ended more than fifteen years ago — which is a long time by pop culture standards.
Kinberg wrote a draft for X3 that was heavily rewritten by Zak Penn due to studio demand. The next X-film he wrote after that was DOFP.
I one day hope we can all simply like or dislike films without it having anything to do with gender. The high road is always to present it as a non-issue, if you portray a strong female character without commenting on it or pointing it out or over compensating by having her “put men in their places” then people will have a lot less to complain about. Believe it or not men like strong female characters, they just don’t like to be preached to.
Well, maybe men should just man up a bit then.
You couldn’t think of a criticism that’s not another gender stereotype? Look, it’s the same issue when it comes to sexual orientation and racial differences, singling a character out for being one specific thing isn’t what you should want, you should want that character to belong without having to point it out or explain it, be the bigger person
It’s wonderful when a female character in a movie is allowed to just be a person, rather than a “type” or a sexist cliché.
It’s wonderful when a female filmmaker is given as many opportunities to fail or succeed as her male counterparts.
Neither of those things happens very often in the entertainment industry. Neither of them happened during the production of this movie.
Until both of those things are commonplace, we need film critics to point out the gender imbalances in movies, over and over again, and to warn us away from terrible films.
But the terrible films are created mostly because female characters are taken as proxies for all women (and their ‘struggles’), are forced into roles due to ‘representation’, and are only made strong through virtue of out-performing or chastising the male characters.
Take Dark Phoenix, for instance. They deliberately change the character of Charles Xavier so that he is a manipulative jerk instead of the conscientious advisor he has always been, simply so they can have Jean Grey get mad at him. It’s contriving a circumstance wherein the man is Wrong, just to try and justify the female character’s rage.
That’s why it doesn’t work. It’s contrived, and stupid. In the original storyline, it is precisely because Jean loses control of herself and starts to reject Charles’ teachings that the terrible events of the story take place. It is much more compelling, much more tragic, much more realistic, and as such is a seminal piece of comics history.
The Man Wrong, Woman Rightly Mad angle is what doesn’t work, and yet its the very basis for all feminist grievance.
If feminists would stop trying to shit on men all the time, they might get genuinely great female characters like Ripley, WW and the original female X-Men, again.
Fuck off with your straw men.
Charles Xavier is a manipulative jerk in the comics. Here he is actually less so.
*spoiler alert*
Creating the mental blocks in Jean’s mind wasn’t done to control
her, but to protect her and others; Jean’s powers are wildly unstable
when she’s emotionally distressed and what could be more distressing
than being a little girl who accidentally killed her own mother and is now hated by her father.Charles clearly cares about Jean and while he could’ve perhaps approached the situation better, his intentions come off as more benevolent and sympathetic.
I gave it all the effort and attention it deserved.
They are. That’s why they’re standing up to your crap instead of taking it like a timid little princess.
Quit it with the abuse or you will be banned. Also: Educate yourself on feminism and women’s representation in Hollywood if you want to be taken seriously here.
He’s plastering his comments all over FF and The Mary Sue as well. I recommend flicking him off.
Back on your main account I see.
That would be amazing. I also am sick of men dominating movies, and look forward to the day when they step aside and let women take over.
If this includes Christopher Nolan, I am boycotting your reviews (which admittedly have dropped in quality after 2016 or so).
I’m heartbroken.
You can’t hate Christopher Nolan because of his chromosomes. That’s ridiculously petty.
I agree, that would be ridiculously petty. Good thing I said absolutely nothing that could be construed as that.
So, you’re cancelling your subscription to hurt her bank account?
Oh wait, you probably aren’t even subscribed.
So your boycott means… what, exactly? Get over yourself.
[spoiler! — added by maj]
I’m still seeing this as I adore most of the X-Men films and want to support Sophie Turner, although the Jennifer Lawrence fan in me is furious that Mystique gets unceremoniously fridged at the beginning. What a waste of incredible talent.
Please add spoiler alerts to comments when appropriate!
I sincerely enjoyed X-Men Apocalypse. It was complete and utter nonsense, but I can’t deny how entertaining it was. The negative reviews definitely didn’t align with the movie I saw. No big deal, happens often, no accounting for taste and all that. So I saw Dark Phoenix opening day in hope of a similar ‘can’t trust the reviews’ experience. And….yikes. Think I’ll just leave it at that.
Apparently the intended tagline for this flick was “If you all thought X 3: The Last Stand was bad…”
Unlike X3 this movie was actually focused on telling a story and as a Phoenix story it was definitely better.
It has its problems but the marketing for this was extremely misleading and that caused a lot of people to not judge it on its own merit. It was not made to be a summer blockbuster about Jean becoming the X-Men’s greatest foe. But a family soap opera with Jean going through a hero’s journey, hence why it was going to be released in the fall.
This movie had a production budget of $200 million. It was definitely intended to be a blockbuster.
A lot of that went to reshoots. Not saying it wasn’t a blockbuster but a “summer” blockbuster, as in it wasn’t made to be an action packed movie.
It’s literally an action-packed movie. And no studio runs a budget up to $200 million if they don’t expect to make that money back.
Your “defense” that this is some sort of kitchen-sink soap-opera drama simply doesn’t fly.
There was only a total of five action scenes.
-Space station sequence
-Grey house fight
-Helicopter tag-of-war
-New York battle
-Train sequence
Only five? You mean they have scenes that — gasp — have no action?
Well, no doubt that makes it the Marvel equivalent of a Merchant and Ivory movie. :-)
The second action scene doesn’t happen until halfway through the movie and most of the other action scenes are not particularly long.
You’re fighting a losing battle here.
So?
Counting scenes and screen minutes of characters is not criticism. Nor is it a refutation of anything I or anyone else here has said.
You were saying that action trumps all in this movie, when honestly there isn’t much action.
That’s not remotely what I’m saying.
This site is not Feminism 101, or Women’s Representation 101, or any other kind of intro to Social Justice War. Comments “debating” feminism, women’s position in Hollywood, and the like, will not be tolerated. These things are not up for debate.
I will close comments here if necessary.
I was so hoping that coming after Game of Thrones this would be a chance for Sophie to step into the limelight, emote, and take charge as a powerful protagonist.
Am I hearing that instead once again this X-Men film, about a group of characters known to be a fantastical stand-in for real-life minorities, once again sidelines, villainises and fridges its female cast while offering gaze and screentime and narrative control to its white male characters, while retaining one female and POC character as a dual token? In 2019?! After the previous EIGHT films have been criticized for that and films that set out to avoid that trap have been cleaning up at the box office internationally?!
Sophie actually gets the most screentime in this movie. Its about her and Xavier’s father-daughter relationship and Jean does not get fridged.
Irrelevant to the criticisms of the movie… and now you’re contradicting yourself. Is this an ensemble soap opera, as you’ve previously claimed, or not?
Also not a negation of any of the criticisms that have been voiced here.
Mystique does.
I’m replying to what another person said who is making the assumption that the female don’t get much screentime.
I don’t see how I’m contradicting myself with that comment. She has the most but Xavier is not far behind her in screentime.
Yeah, but this person was thinking the female cast was fridged. A lot of people think Jean died in the movie.
Not what the commenter said. And even if it was, screentime does not automatically make her the central character, nor does it negate the huge problem at her story being told through the eyes of men.
I feel like your arguing with other people who are not present in the comments here. Don’t do that.
Are you familiar with the “hero’s journey” concept? Because that is exactly what they did with Jean here and she interacts with the X-Men way more than you remember.
Oh my goodness. Yes, I am familiar with this concept. And no, that’s not what they did with her character.
I have no idea what you think you’re saying here. But just because she interacts with characters for X minutes does not mean it’s done well or in any way that centers her in the story.
Oh they definitely use the hero’s journey trope on Jean. She goes through almost all the steps (I’m not the only to notice it either). Rundown:
The Call to Adventure – Jean is called to go upon a space mission, which is established as something new to the X-Men.
Refusal to the Call – Jean shows hesitance on going on the mission, asking if Mystique is okay with it. But accepts the call, saying that she is okay with it if Mystique is okay with it. She is also called upon to go on the space shuttle by Xavier to hold it together and is also hesitant at first but accepts.
Magical Aid – Jean gets a power-up from a primal universal force.
Crossing the Threshold – Jean ventures away from the X-Men to search for her father.
Belly of the Whale –Jean accidentally kills Mystique, starting manhunt for her.
Woman as Temptress – Vuk(Jessica) tries to tempt Jean and offer her control of her powers, which is what the character wanted since Apocalypse and at the start of the movie.
Atonement with the Hero’s Father – Jean confronts Xavier over the things he did to her. Who is her adoptive father and holds the ultimate power in her life. The difficult relationship between the two is reconciled.
Rescue From Without – Magneto and Beast who wanted to kill hold the D’Bari(aliens) off to protect her.
Apotheosis – Jean becomes godlike after she reconciles with Xavier.
The Ultimate Boon – Jean finally gains what she wanted: control of her powers.
Refusal of the Return – Jean doesn’t return to Earth(but the ending of DOFP shows us that she eventually does)
Master of the Two Worlds – Jean evolves beyond this world and lives as a cosmic being in space.
Freedom to Live – The movie ends with Xavier saying that Jean is free and we see her alive at the end.
Oh, they do. Particularly, her interactions with Xavier which build up to the atonement of the father step, the heart of the story in the hero’s journey.
Here’s a picture of the Incredible Hulk:
https://images.app.goo.gl/DKnaMrEA87sMoySy6
Here’s a picture of She-Hulk:
https://images.app.goo.gl/R3XLHwcfmDFSYmhN7
They both have pretty similar abilities. They both get their powers from gamma radiation. They’re both wearing about the same amount of clothing. They’re even blood relatives.
See if you can spot the subtle differences in the way the characters are portrayed. A hint: You won’t find it by comparing the plot points of their origin stories or by counting the number of action scenes in their comics.
I disagree. (A new mission is not a call to adventure, for starters.) But even if I did agree with you, that doesn’t mean this hero’s journey is well done. And it isn’t.
The Call to Adventure is when the hero receives a call to leave their ordinary life and off into the unknown. It’s not about it being a new mission but they are heading off into space, which is the unknown for the X-Men. Quicksilver even says: “We’re doing space missions now? Cool”. So it’s definitely something that out of the ordinary.
I do somewhat agree with you that it is not done well. Jean’s journey doesn’t have the impact that it should and that is due to the usually short runtime as Roxana Hadadi said in her review. If it was closer to 2 1/2 hours I think it would have at least been more coherent, you could feel the story leapfrogging itself to get to the important pieces in the second act, which feels like it’s 10 minutes.
Back in September Simon Kinberg said that the movie was over two hours long. I suspect the studio decided to make it under two hours to get more showtimes.
I know what a hero’s journey is, thanks.
I wouldn’t mind a continuation of the Logan-verse, focusing on X-23, as long as Wolvie and the rest remain dead. But then there wouldn’t be any of the recognizable characters, and would they want — or could they even — maintain the tone? So probably not going to happen.
I liked this one better than Apocalypse. The latter was a complete mess, while Dark Phoenix had some good moments, even if the movie as a whole didn’t really come together. To me the problem was that they took what could have been a solid story on its own — Jean Grey’s rise in power and fall to the dark side and the X-Men’s reaction to that — and grafted on a plot about aliens trying to take that power. The latter wan’t needed and made the movie much more unfocused.
The point of the story was that Jean wouldn’t fall to the dark side like she did in the new timeline.
When you eventually watch it don’t go in expecting a summer blocker about Jean becoming the X-Men’s greatest foe and a grand finale to the series similar to Endgame, which is what it was misleadingly marketed to be. Because I have read over a hundred of reviews and that is a big part of the reason why the RT meter is so low.
It was made to be a family soap opera about Jean’s hero’s journey that;s why it was going to be released in the fall. This is what Sophie Turner said back in October.
“This movie is very different to any of the X-men movies. You have Logan
which is a Western drama, Deadpool is a comedy. Dark Phoenix is more
like a family drama, and is much more character-driven, emotional. Take
away the superhero, fantastical parts of it and it’ll hold up as a very
good movie. If you take the fantastical parts out of prior movies,
you’ll only get half an hour of material.”
Please stop with your “it’s not meant to be a summer blockbuster” crap. That does not invalid criticisms of this movie.
I wasn’t trying to invalid any criticisms in that post. I am just telling clayjohanson not to watch it with those expectations, that is all.
Please don’t post the same comments multiple times.
Sorry for the repetition but they were for different people.
So this just came out on digital and I gotta say that Jean’s journey is definitely not shown from the eyes of the men, but from her point of view. The audience don’t found out about Xavier’s secrets and true intentions until Jean does.
Screen time calculations were recently done and Jean’s dwarfs all other characters significantly. Coming in at 35 minutes, which is Wolverine-level screen time and 14 minutes more than Xavier. Everyone else is barley in the movie. Those scenes where character talk about Jean are not as prevalent as you thought.
Anthony Hopkins was onscreen for just over 16 minutes in The Silence of the Lambs, but he won an Oscar and influenced the direction of movies for years afterward. Other actors, like Judi Dench, have won Academy Awards for performances half that length.
https://news.sky.com/story/oscars-hathaway-wins-for-15-minutes-on-screen-10453551
Sometimes the issue isn’t how much screen time you get but what you do with it. Sherlock Holmes is often “offstage” for large sections of the Holmes stories, but he’s still the main character.
This current obsession with counting screen minutes and deciding that is a good measure of onscreen representation is redolent of some people’s notion that, ahem, size and performance/satisfaction are directly correlated.
I should also have pointed out, more seriously, that Shylock has a lot of lines in The Merchant of Venice.
Okay. But my point is that they didn’t spend a lot of time on the male characters like this review claims. It’s a case of stealing the show rather than the spotlight. Like how many people thought the Joker had a lot of screen time in The Dark Knight than he really did (he is only in it for 14 minutes).
If a character had appeared in blackface for one minute of the movie, would you defend the scene by saying, “It was only sixty seconds long!?
My complaints have nothing to do with how much screen time each character has.
It seemed like you were complaining the movie focusing more on the male characters instead of Jean here:
“That starts with Jean Grey herself (Sophie Turner: Game of Thrones, Barely Lethal), one of the most powerful mutants — she can read minds and is intensely telekinetic — and the putative protagonist here. Except screenwriter Simon Kinberg apparently has no idea how to tell a woman’s story unless it is filtered through the eyes of the men around her. ”
“they all spend a shit-ton of time talking about Jean and how much they love and respect her and how worried that are about her seemingly going evil, after absorbing a strange interstellar force cloud while on a mission to Earth orbit to rescue a space-shuttle crew.”
You called her the “putative” protagonist and then complained about the time spend on the male characters.
Do you remember the leprechaun in the Lucky Charms commercials? A lot of people would say he’s the main character, and he usually gets the most lines, but not every Irish person is thrilled at the way he’s portrayed.
Well Jean wasn’t portrayed as evil in this movie if that is what you think, even the cast and crew said she wasn’t really a villain. Just someone suffering with a mental health problem. I came across this interesting article about two mental health doctors talking about she was just suffering from PTSD.
https://parade.com/890941/maggie_parker/dark-phoenix-is-an-eye-opening-lesson-in-what-ptsd-is-like-for-women-and-why-that-matters/
Who here has said anything about Jean being “evil” or a “villain”?
It’s difficult to tell whether you’re being deliberately obtuse, or what…
You did in your review. Here is a screenshot of it.
You’re trying to define sexism so narrowly that hardly anything could possibly qualifiy as sexist. That’s like saying, “We don’t have segregated buses or drinking fountains anymore, so racism no longer exists.”
The Parade magazine article, however, is quite moving.
That’s what people do: They define sexism (or racism, or any other kind of bigotry) so narrowly so that it cannot possibly apply to them.
Are you for real? You are suggesting that I am calling Jean evil because characters in the movie discuss whether she is evil?
I am done with you.
Well, such a discussion wasn’t actually in the movie. Watched it again just to make sure.
But whatever, lets just agree to disagree.
Yes, I am absolutely complaining about how Jean’s story is told through the eyes of the men.
Counting up screen time for the various characters is not a counter to that.
Late reply, but I just want to say that I found it very odd to call a character who suffers from several emotional symptoms of being traumatized throughout the film to be “shockingly indistinct”. Not everyone goes through CPTSD (also an element from the source material).
You think this character’s trauma is portrayed well?