Dark Phoenix (2019)-New Trailer!

This movie wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. It had its moments. I'm sorry to hear that Sophie is one of those vapers. I thought she was smarter than that. It's a nasty habit that can cause wet lung and heart disease after only a month, from what I've read in a medical journal.

 

Much better than I thought it would be and my second-favorite from the current cast.

I am not looking forward to another reboot with a new cast. I’d rather they kept making them with some of the current players in this timeline under the Marvel studios banner. Bring in new mutants as needed and send Professor X off into space with Magneto relegated to occasional guest appearances.

 

Yeah my sister in law asked me about vaping vs. smoking and I pointed out you still have chemicals that damage lung tissue going directly into the lungs. With vaping it’s enitrely possible that it’s much worse because of smaller particle size, etc.

 

I’d love to see the Professor X story where he initially loses his mind (as I recall hinted at in “Logan”).

 

Where he kills all the mutants? In the comic 'Old Man Logan' it is actually Logan who kills all the mutants, under the influence of Mysterio. They changed that for the film version, which I think works just as well in that context.

 

the finger pointing has begun

"We Were Wrong": Behind Fox's 'Dark Phoenix' Debacle

 

“No rush to bring the x- men back”

Crappy way to end the series.

 

i sure there'll be another "Deadpool"..... "X-Man"- adjacent, as the kids would say....

 

"Dark Phoenix" is a perfectly fine film. It's not great. It's not "Logan." It's better than some "superhero" films, and worse than others. It's decidedly a good type of "fine." And films like that should be allowed to exist and be enjoyed.

The vitriol and schadenfreude with which this film is being carved up is just gross and makes a ton of critics look bad. I've seen some good critical reviews of the film. But most aren't.

This is not the worst X-Men film, and the 17 to 24% Rotten Tomatoes score is ridiculous.

Given the *year-plus* of bad publicity for this film (check out articles and YouTube videos insisting the film was so awful it would never even come out theatrically!), awful Rotten Tomatoes score, bad word of mouth, Disney certainly not putting extra muscle into a lame duck film they'll reboot in several years, I'm amazed the film even made $30+ million.

What's even more bizarre is that the criticisms of this film seem off. As if some of the critics haven't actually seen it, or had it on the background while they did other stuff.

There are plenty of films I like that critics don't (or films we all agree are bad) where I absolutely understand the criticisms. I like most DC films too. I even like "Suicide Squad", but I absolutely recognize how that film is a "hot mess" on numerous levels.

But with "Dark Phoenix", rarely have I seen a film where my experience and critics are so at odds. In the opposite direction, I remember feeling that way about "Avatar", I thought it was dull and unmemorable, but back in 2009 I couldn't find one scathing review of it (conveniently, NOW everybody hates on the film a decade later). I thought "Dark Phoenix" was enjoyable, surprisingly pretty concise and straightforward, and was somewhat emotionally resonant. It also has a pretty good soundtrack/score. A decidedly "pretty good" film in my experience. It has plenty of flaws. It needed to be fleshed out more for sure. It's a solid sort of "7-ish out of 10" for me.

While I don't think *anything* would have vastly changed the box office fortunes of this movie, being a Fox lameduck post-Disney film, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that the title itself I don't think helped. Yes, there are people who know the name "X-Men" and not much else. Yet, this film did not include "X-Men" in the title. Internationally, it was titled "X-Men: Dark Phoenix", while in the US it's just "Dark Phoenix."

I do honestly think there are casual moviegoers who don't read internet skeptics and reviews, don't do much but notice titles, who may not know what "Dark Phoenix" is but know "X-Men."

But yes, "X-Men" is firmly in the same boat as "Star Trek", it's very well-known IP with huge past success, that for whatever reason far fewer people seem to be heavily into anymore, while eating up MCU stuff sight unseen. It's just a branding thing.

YouTube may be the worst. It's an absolute echo chamber. Many of the same phrases and terminology are rampant through countless reviews, from the high-level polished channels to the mumbly, angry, backwards-baseball cap guys ranting about the movie while driving home in their car.

RedLetterMedia just posted a review video of both "Godzilla 2" and "Dark Phoenix", and I think their take is pretty right on. They see both films as okay, but a good okay where an "okay" film should be allowed to exist.

Those two films do indeed join a long list of films that, as they coin it, are "Flop Busters." Meaning, films that are portrayed as huge bombs, that have huge budgets, but still make a solid amount of money and probably break even or eventually pull a profit after secondary sources (rentals, purchases, streaming, etc.).

I'm still hugely annoyed why two an indie film that makes $10 million can be called a stunning success while something that makes like $46 million can be a "huge bomb." Yes, stock holders have to take that viewpoint. But at the end of the day, a ton of people bought tickets to the $46 million film. Did the studio want or need more? Maybe, probably. But why should we care? Stockholders should. But I don't care about the studios' bottom line. Other than "franchises" where the return rate of investment on a given film will indicate whether more are made, box office shouldn't matter. And people, I guarantee you that all of the Star Wars fans who went to see "Return of the Jedi" in 1983 weren't talking endlessly the next Monday morning about how much profit 20th Century Fox made on the film. Sure, there was often a bit of general knowledge that a film was a big "hit", but fans weren't poring over box office receipts back then. They saw the movie, and talked about the MOVIE.

 

The "February" issue is quite interesting and makes some sense. Again, I don't think it would have done a ton better. But it is a bit of a "smaller" film and probably would have played at least a *little* better in February.

 

And *not* showing it made "Logan" a million times better. Only vaguely alluding to this supposed tragedy was a great aspect of that film. It also allowed the film to kind of exist outside of any specific X-Men continuity. I'm so glad this film was made before Disney bought fox. It NEVER would have been made under Disney.

 

Also, whether one loves or hates the film (or in between), the stuff that got cut seems to be part of another fascinating story much like the Snyder and Ayer DC films, etc.

Because everybody is being so harsh and dismissive of "Dark Phoenix", it has gone largely unnoticed that there are things in all three trailers for the film that got cut or changed. Some notes on things changed:

Spoiler

They appear to have moved away to some degree from Jean Grey characterizing the force inside her as something separate, and made it more about herself. That is, for instance, one line in the trailer where she says "Why did you make me do that?" is changed to "Why did I do that?"

Also, her conversation with Magneto seems to have been altered. The "are you threatening me?" and "that would be a bad idea" lines from the trailer are gone from the film. They seem to have shifted the scene from Jean asking Magneto essentially "how to be evil" to "how do I stop killing and be good again?"

I think they, in general, tried to downplay how evil and self-serving Jean could have been. The "and it feels good" line from the trailer, seemingly one of the big linchpins of the film as presented in the trailer, has also been removed.

Several scenes shown in the trailer were completely cut. Chastain's character in a church was completely cut. There's a shot of Cyclops talking to Jean in the rain that is completely gone.

 

The problem with Dark Phoenix it came out just after Endgame, it may have fared better as a winter movie ie released end of 2018. If Apocalypse was Beatles For Sale, Dark Phoenix was Tony Sheridan & The Beatles. Ain’t she sweet .....not.

 

Definitely a Blu-ray watch for me.

 

I'm not sure that's a particularly apt analogy; I don't think the films are that far apart. But certainly, following up "Endgame" didn't *help* "Dark Phoenix."

I'm guessing had it come out in February instead of June, instead of hitting $33 million, it might have done maybe $40 to $45 million.

I think "movie bombs big time!" headlines get more clicks than "movie performs as expected" headlines, or even "movie slightly under-performs most recent projections!", so that doesn't help things either. I posted in a few other threads examples of the *same exact film's* opening weekend box office being reported on in *very different* ways from different media outlets. I also reprinted examples of a media outlet giving a projection a week or two before a movie comes out, and then when that film *meets* the low end of that expectation/projection, the same media outlet claims it "under-performed." This weird convergence usually occurs when movies are not *clear* bombs, but aren't clear hits either. Media outlets don't know what to do. "Box office blow out!" and "Dumbo flops harder than his ears!" are kind of the only two settings most media outlets seem to know.

"Dark Phoenix" is another film that most likely is indeed a "Flop Buster". It's probably going to hit around $75-80 million domestically, maybe another $100-$150 internationally, so it'll be at around $200-250 million overall. At that point it'll still be operating at a clear loss. But it'll probably make money back on rentals and sales and in "Waterworld" fashion probably turn a profit eventually.

The only thing that might complicate this long-term profit margin is Disney engaging in self-dealing via putting it up on its own streaming service (whether Hulu or Disney Plus; it's unclear where the non-MCU Fox Marvel movies are going to go I think) rather than selling it to Netflix or Amazon Prime. But that's an issue that only profit-participation partners (e.g. producers, possibly some stars) will have to look at in the future.

 

I thought it played well on the big screen. I often get a "regular" set in a DBox theater, and it was pretty engaging. There's a great opening sequence involving the Space Shuttle that I quite enjoyed.

Seriously, I think a good hunk of people inclined to like this *type* of stuff will actually enjoy the film, and it's likely going to disappear pretty quickly from the big screen, so I think it's worth going!

 

End of the day it failed to entertain, and not just me. Least favourite X-Men film.

 

I agree with the assessments above. I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it like I hated Apocalypse. It could have been better, especially if they'd allowed the Jean/Phoenix story to play out over several movies (i.e., in the first movie she becomes Phoenix, in the second she is corrupted and destroys the alien homeworld, and in the third she is taken by the Shi'ar, put on trial, and eventually sacrifices herself.) Unfortunately, the X-Men movies have never been focused on setting up plot points for the next movie and they've all suffered because of this. Marvel Studios could do it right, but I'm not interested in yet another iteration of the Phoenix storyline.

I thought the action scenes were well done and exciting, I liked most of the characters and actors, the story made sense, and the score was terrific.

 

Of course. And I'd love to read and hear more reviews that get into why they feel it failed. I've seen surprisingly little in the way of specifics, especially in non-print reviews.

What I think doesn't add anything is rampant headlines about the box office performance, and this film is getting some of the most click-baity, brutal headlines I've seen in some time. I know a bunch of these media outlets had these headlines and stories written last week.

I can't even count how many YouTube reviews have gone like this: "I'm a huge X-Men fan. I haven't read the comic books, and I hate most or all of the X-Men films." At that point then, *are* you an X-Men fan? It's like the Star Wars fans who only like "A New Hope", "Empire Strikes Back", and parts of "Return of the Jedi" and "Force Awakens." If there are 10 going on 11 films in the series, and you only like 2 and 1/2 or 3 of them, are you really a HUGE fan of the films?

I think some people, especially those who haven't read the X-Men comics or watched the animated series, and/or don't have an attachment to the old stories, who then complain about "Dark Phoenix" may actually just be people who *don't like* the Dark Phoenix story in any iteration.

At a certain point, and this is obviously an extreme example, if your main film interest in film is Italian Giallo films, then maybe you're never going to like "The Good Dinosaur", right?

 

Unfamiliar with Dark Phoenix saga ( stopped collecting Marvel comics 1968), The Last Stand i thought was alright, story a little boring though this was the third X-Men film in six years and although it wasn’t imo as good as X-Men 2 .. ..I enjoyed it.

 

Chris Stuckmann is a YouTube reviewer I enjoy watching from time to time. He gives the film a negative but fair review. I have yet to see the film myself, but I’ll remedy that at some point.

 

The last installment of the Fox-Men, and it shares so many similarities with the plot of Brett Ratner's X3: The Last Stand (2006) that they should have called it Dark Phoenix: Return Of The Rat.

Dark, moody, unrelenting and drab. Things only start to pick up when Michael Fassbender's Magneto appears (Fassbender is always great, and needs a new franchise, and they should make him Bond).

Some decent action when it finally gets going, amid all the glowering and the scenery-chewing by the actors. Awful dialogue most of the time. A character's death (telegraphed in the trailers) has virtually no emotional impact.

I did however like eventually getting to see everyone show off their powers (Nightcrawler in particular).

Director / writer Simon Kinberg is quite out of his depth with this film, and seemed to think he was remaking Apocalypse Now instead of an X-Men flick. The guiding hand of an experienced director like Bryan Singer (or even the very capable Matthew Vaughn) is noticeably lacking here.

A sputtering, aimless end to the series which started with the very enjoyable X-Men: First Class and continued in the fantastic Days Of Future Past. Fassbender and McAvoy especially deserved better than this undercooked tripe.

Fox also has had two chances to adapt the Dark Phoenix Saga, and has summarily phucked it up both times (Fox's laziness and lack of ambition with their franchise is even more embarrassing in comparison to the Infinity Saga mega-arc Marvel skillfully built up in the MCU). I look forward to see if Disney can salvage the X-characters with a complete reboot in a few years.

5/10

 

I watch a lot of Stuckmann. I still have issues with some of his reviews and a bit of an issue with how he tackles film criticism, but I can’t deny he’s far and away better than many if not most on YouTube.

I recently re-watched “X-Men: Apocalypse” and found it to be surprisingly not too bad. The main villain is pretty drab, and that is a big flaw. But, while I didn’t find nearly as a wide of a chasm between what I felt and what masses of reviewers did on “Apocalypse” as opposed to “Dark Phoenix”, I do think it also was a bit unfairly scathingly maligned. So I was surprised a few days ago to rewatch Stuckmann’s review of “Apocalypse” and he actually gave it a pretty good review. He probably liked it *more* than I did!

Based on what I can tell, Stuckmann is making more of a concerted effort to *not* watch a lot of trailers before seeing films and *not* paying a ton of attention to the industry back story stuff, and I think that does help him come at the films in a fresh way. I think a lot of people heard about reshoots on “Dark Phoenix” and immediately were going to hate the stuff they think was re-shoots. Also, Stuckmann seems to be joining the Kevin Smith school of not saying anything too bad about films in general. The “I’m a filmmaker and I wouldn’t want people to attack me” school of thought, which I have mixed feelings about.

But yeah, at least Stuckmann examined the film and was pretty fair about “Dark Phoenix”, as opposed to the snarky, quick-cut, jumpcut, “RANT!!!” YouTube people out there.

 

Well, we know Bryan Singer is likely not going to be let anywhere near any major (or mid-range) films any time soon, if ever. I’ve never found his work to be great. I’ve rarely had complaints specifically about his work either. I think *very few* superhero films show a strong director’s hand that impresses me. Exceptions would be the usual things that almost *aren’t* really superhero films, like Mangold’s amazing work on “Logan”, or Nolan’s Batman films, etc. The MCU films that most strongly show a specific director’s touch tend to be the more light, funny films like Ragnarok and the Guardians films.

I was fine with Kinberg’s direction. Apart from a couple of weird close-up shots (one with the military dude and Magneto was like right up their nostrils for some reason), I thought the direction was fine. I think some issues can be raised with the editing and cinematography, and I’ll even just assume they go hand in hand enough with direction that I’m not going to give Kinberg a pass where those things are problematic.

Kinberg’s work is certainly not a masterclass in the profession. But it was fine.

I think “Dark Phoenix” is a bit like “Solo” in that both films were long in the trades as having problematic productions, and I think both featured a solid end product that in both cases is probably a case where there’s like a million times more scotch tape holding things together just under the surface that you can’t see, and both productions probably came perilously close to being true disasters (as in “I don’t know if we should even finish shooting this” type of a disaster), but were held together and formed an entertaining product.

Do such films need to exist? No more or less than the 22 MCU films, or DC films, or Fast & Furious films, or whatever it may be.

As for the future, Disney will certainly work with X-Men material sooner or later. I find many if not most MCU films to be very well-made, and usually pretty soulless and leaving me pretty empty, so I'm not particularly excited by what they'll do with X-Men films. They'll certainly be far less likely to be hot messes. But at this point, I prefer movies that make me feel more and think more even if they're messier. To a certain point obviously.

 

I enjoy Apocalypse for what it is, and don't understand the hate it gets. Is it one of the lesser X-films? Yes. It stuffs in a lot of characters with little to no development just to stuff them in (Olivia Munn's Psylocke; the guy who played Angel/Archangel). Oscar Issak's title villain got them fighting someone besides Magneto for once. Some of the action sequences are eye-popping. It has a very comic booky feel cross pollinated with the 90's cartoon. It's also tons more fun than this new movie.