Be warned, there be MAJOR SPOILERS here for "X-Men: The Last Stand." But take it from me, read the spoilers and save yourself $10.

Waiting for the final piece of the X-Men trilogy to air, something that I have been excited about since the lights went up at the end of the second installment in what seems like a lifetime ago, I almost gasped as the full trailer for "Superman Returns" started to run.

It immediately reminded me how much I'm still a little pissy about the fact that Bryan Singer jumped ship, with just one movie left in the X-Men series. But then I realized that just because there's a new director, doesn't mean necessarily that the magic of the previous two films were gone. Look at the Harry Potter films. Even though there've been three different people calling the shots in those films, they've only gotten better.

So how bad could Brett Ratner's take on "X-Men: The Last Stand" be? Well, I could answer that directly, but why? Let's just say that before we even got to the opening titles, I already was wishing "Superman" had premiered already.

Why are people so drawn to the X-Men? The answer is simple. Being different usually is license to be ridiculed, or worse yet, persecuted. Whether it's lead by fear, or by some desire to be superior at all costs, if you're not part of the majority in society's playground, you're not part of anything at all.

Bryan Singer got that. He completely understood what mutants represented, how easy it was to fear instead of learning, how easy it was to hate instead of love. Whether it's because of the color of your skin, the language you speak, the god you pray to, or who you love, it's a tough world out there and there's always some yutz who simply wants to "cure" you and make you more like them.

As a story, "The Last Stand" captures that. But there's more to making a movie than a simple one-page summary. And unfortunately, "The Last Stand" never made it past that. We start in a world that is a better place. Mutants are more accepted than ever before. Hell, the President of the United States has a mutant (Kelsey Grammer) in his own cabinet. But not everything is hunky-dory. There is an evil terrorist out there, and his name is Magneto (Ian McKellen). The government needs to stop him, and they start by catching one of his henchmen, the beautiful Mystique (Rebecca Romijn).

And speaking of which, what a great set of characters we've grown to love, too. Magneto, Mystique, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) and Professor X (Patrick Stewart). But by the time it's all said and done, our favorite characters from this group are either killed or declawed. The only person left standing is what almost becomes our true American hero, Wolverine.

The government thinks they have a cure, and they found it in a boy. Although scientists already have been able to extract this essence from the boy and turn it into a weapon to "cure" mutants of their genetic mutations, Magneto gets it in his head that if he kills the boy, mutants will once again live to see another day. I'm sorry, but that plothole is far bigger than anything Juggernaut (Vinnie Jones) could make through a wall.

They say that every action has an equal reaction. But here, neither the actions, or the so-called reactions made sense. After enjoying her through the first 25 minutes or so of the film, Mystique is "cured." Just before that, Cyclops (James Marsden) bites the dust. And just as we started to enjoy the power of Professor X, the Phoenix (Famke Janssen) makes mince meat out of him.

Why? What was the point? To show that everyone can die? That everyone can be normalized? Because we'd rather have a film focus on characters that aren't very exciting, and whose presence makes little sense? But more about that in a second.

Magneto decides he wants to go to Alcatraz, where they are keeping the "source" of the mutant cure. In the second film, all Magneto needed was a little bit of metal to make a grand escape and travel as far as he wanted. But for some strange inexplicable reason, Magneto decides to travel via Golden Gate Bridge. Yes, I know ... the Golden Gate doesn't go to Alcatraz. Let's just say that it does now. But why did we need this? Did Ratner simply have a few million dollars lying around, and realized he had nothing big and memorable for the film? Once again, an unnecessary action in what is an unnecessary film.

With so much disjointed storyline, I had a hard time figuring out if there was a storyline. I still don't know what it is. Phoenix did nothing more than destroy a house, look mean, and become a slut. Grammer played a tame beast who had stereotypical strengths when needed. And do we really believe that six people, six X-Men, could stop an entire army of mutants?

There was no magic in this film. There was nothing that made the first two films as great as they were. And I'm sorry, I think Twentieth Century Fox made a mistake moving forward with this film without Singer at the helm. Apparently, his influence on the success of the franchise was far stronger than even Fox executives had realized.

One of the things that Singer was doing right was trying to minimize, or even eliminate Storm (Halle Berry). Hallelujah. What is it exactly that Storm does? And why is it whenever I see Storm in action, I keep comparing her to Deanna Troi of Star Trek? I mean, "Give us cover, Storm." Cover for what? Why are you taking up all the good lines?

I have strange taste in films, I will grant that. There are films that I love that people hate. There are films that I hate that people love. But I can tell you that a way for me to like even a drabby film is through one simple fact: Is the movie acting the way it should, or is it trying to be something it isn't? I liked "The Punisher" not just because it was filmed in Tampa, where I live, but because it wasn't trying to be anything more than an adult comic book film movie. There were no efforts to have Oscar contention, or some long drawn out love story. It was fast-paced, had good action, and the ending was fulfilling.

On the other hand, I hated "Spider-Man 2" because while the first film in that series acted exactly the way it was supposed to be, the second one tried to be so much more ... so much more than what it was. That was the movie's downfall, and that's the downfall of "X-Men: The Last Stand."

I actually didn't smile at all during this film until after the credits, where there is a 30-second epilogue. It was very cleverly done, but something like that should be a nice kicker, not the best part of the film overall.

Mr. Ratner, I'm sure you're a decent filmmaker. But do me a favor. Please stay away from any other franchise I enjoy. Your track record through X-Men is not impressive, and I would like to see the road end here.

Michael Hinman is the founder and news coordinator for Airlock Alpha. He can be reached at michael@airlockalpha.com.