umnesy pnoto
WOLVERINE (left) played by Hagh Jackataa, coafroats the metamorph Mystiqae (Rebecca Roadja-Staaios)
la the fiba adaptioa ef the eaadc book classic,X-Mea.
Adaptations dazzle on big screens
MOVIES from page 7
Jensen, Hugh Jaclunan, Halle
Berry
Rating: PG-13
Mass destruction and chaos
will ensue in the movie “X
Men,” that’s a given. What is not
given, is the sheer coolness of the
characters and, simply, what
powers they possess.
Aside from their coolness,
however, one has no choice but
to watch “X-Men” and notice, as
I did, the blatant underlying con
notation of the mutants’ “coming
out” paralleled with the struggle
of gays coming out. If the
mutants were gay, then they’d
have double worry.
I’m trying to be funny, so
please, read on.
The mutants, or X-Men as
they call themselves, in the
movie just wanna be loved. Is
that so wrong? I think not... or
do I?
The plight of the mutants
stems from the fact that they
were ostracized as adolescent
teens.
Well boo-hoo. So you were
teased because you can walk
through walls or shoot lasers out
of your eyes. Or we should weep
for you because we humans
don’t know what it feels like to
be able to say “Oh if you touch
my skin you will die!” Quit
whinin’ freaks - gays and
mutants alike.
Like there’s nothing you can
do about your situation.
I know! Where gays should
rent tanks from the army and
blast the homophobes back to
1872, the mutants could use their
powers and rebel. Oh wait, that’s
already what the bad guys do in
this movie based on the well
known comic book series “X
Men” created by Stan Lee and
Jack Kirby. Lee was an executive
producer for the movie that
• starred his “pets of ink”.
The idea to make the comic
into a movie was a good one.
Although I was not an X-Men
reader, this movie made me quite
curious about Lee’s cultural rev
olution in the comic book world.
There are many comic book fans
out there and I hope they weren’t
disappointed with the movie ver
sion.
This movie has many stan
dard, Hollywood-style traits but
none of them are used poorly.
The dark “Batman”-esque light
ing was perfect for mutants in a
big city and the special effects
were sharp. What sort of gave the
director, Bryan Singer, an edge
up on most other comic-style
movies (“The Shadow”, “The
Phantom”) is his odd finesse
with the camera and close-ups.
With these wonderful close
ups, Singer gives the X-Men a
chance to show the pain that is
entailed with being a mutant and
living life in fear. Singer doesn’t
need dialogue to explain this, but
simply a facial expression that
isn’t quite heroic and isn’t quite
evil.
The musical score, done by
Michael Kamen, is not overdone
like most Hollywood action
flicks. It was apparent in the
right places and more subtle or
entirely nonexistent as needed.
The music enhanced, without
conscious knowledge, the move
ments of the mutants as they bat
tle one another.
The makeup of one of the
evil X-Men, Mystique, was quite
amazing - and it wasn’t a suit, it
was makeup. The one compari
son my mind kept wanting to
make was to that of Darth Maul’s
makeup in Star Wars. His was
shoddy and didn’t work well
(wasn’t scary!); Mystique’s was
rather impressive.
Speaking of Darth Maul, the
man who played him, Ray Park,
also had a role as the evil mutant,
Toad, in the movie. Watch for his
little stint swinging a metal rod
as if it were a light saber.
The end of the movie leaves
off with hard-core sequel poten
tial that I’m sure will come to
fruition in a couple of years. If
“X-men” doesn’t get a sequel in
this day and age when atrocities
like “Tlie Nutty Professor” can, I
think I’ll die.
Even the love interest was
downplayed just enough after
being introduced that it could
work in the sequel without seem
ing rehashed.
This is a good movie to take
your kids to as well. It’s fantasy
enough to let them know they
can’t walk through walls, but yet
it’s got some good, old-fashioned
family values to be learned.
Namely, don’t tease other kids
when you’re young because
those teased kids may kill you
later in life due to the fact that
they were mutants. ★★★ —
Karen Brown
Brown! Nebraska
bucks tolerant trend
BROWN from page 5
nized in Nebraksa. The uniting of
two persons of the same sex in a
civil union, domestic partnership,
or other similar same-sex rela
tionship, shall not be valid or rec
ognized in Nebraska.” Well,
phooey! Nebraska already only
recognizes marriage as that of a
male and a female, so why the
extra assurance?
To double-check their first
crusade for holes? Nah, it’s just
something to do, I suppose. It
could (and would) deny GLBT
their civil rights for all time, but
come on queer folks, do you think
an amendment like this will stay
for long? If it passes, don’t sweat
it, a lot can happen in ten years.
If this amendment passes,
which it will, don’t lose all hope.
Perhaps we can start planning
early to write up a new petition
and be vague with the community
like the Committee for the
Defense of Marriage has been.
Why do we (the GLBT folks)
want to be allowed into an institu
tion that has a 57 percent failure
rate anyway?
I mean, more people are find
ing that this marriage thing isn’t
the cat’s meow. 57 percent
divorce rate. Sheesh. It’s sorta
cool, however, to think that gays
have no part in the decline of the
American family, which is what
straights are worried about in the
first place. I believe that they’re
just scared that with factoring
homos, the divorce rate would
Karen Brown is senior ei
. Nebraskan
drop, leaving the scientists to
scratch their chins.
What I want to fight for is the
legal aspect of marriage regard
less of how I personally feel
about marriage. I want to fight for
those who want to and can't get
hitched. I will fight for die cause
because it'is simply unfair for die
married to get tax breaks, insur
ance benefits, and societal
approval. I want all those things
and my MTV!
If marriage were a religious
thing (which many claim as the
source for die proposal in the fust
place), then it wouldn’t have the
ties to insurance and tax breaks.
People no longer get married “for
God”. Just look at the facts; THE
DIVORCE RATE IS 57%!
Marriage isn’t “sacred” and
“holy,” it’s a drive-through win
dow in Vegas with a hung-over
minister of love churning out
couples faster than you can say,
“How in the hell did George W.
Bush make it this far?”
Are we hurting straight peo
ple? Do we threaten them if we
were to be equal? Why? These
hate mongers are the ones who
can’t answer, because they have
no valid answers. I say “Screw
’em”, though not literally
because then someone would get
upset. Let what happens, hap
pens. We’ll fight, but if we can’t
stop the white, privileged hate
mongers from bigotry and close
mindedness, so be it We will find
the loopholes, and then, straighty,
we’re coming after ya.
tglish major and a Daily
columnist
GiazeskiB Reasoning
of same-sex ban flaived
GLAZESKI from page 5
explicitly grant favor to any par
ticular religious establishment.
The homophobic movement,
however, claims none other than
the Bible as its chief guide. By
trying to instill the constitution
with morals drawn from a sub
jectively interpreted religious
text, ban-supporters are not
establishing their religion. But
they are granting preference to
their religious views.
Ban-supporters may claim
the right to legislate moral
behavior — but this should not
be misidentified by voters as a
valid claim. Whatever your
moral views are, the proper pro
tector of those views, and the
proper forum for their debate, is
not in state law, much less in the
constitution. The proper place is
the church.
The day we allow the govern
ment to enforce the moral beliefs
of a majority over a minority,
moral beliefs that have nothing
to do with rights of person or
property, but with one or two
quotations of a religious text —
that is the day we slip tragically
toward theocracy.
Jacob Glazeski is a math major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist
