My review of X-Men Origins: Wolverine


13 responses to “My review of X-Men Origins: Wolverine

  1. Yes; this was an appalling film; it was essentially unrelated to the other existing X-Men movies (ie: instead of having adamantium bolted into his body, because of his mutation that he can heal very quickly.. he just naturally has these claws and such.. ie: shifting his mutation from being healing, to being wolf-like.) Aside from the switch in concept, it was poorly executed.

    Others seem to like it, but it was a total turn off for me (much like X-Men 3)

  2. I liked X-Men 3. But I had already seen the thing where a super-strong woman had to be prevented from destroying the world by a man and love once before. So that part was a little bit of a buzzkill for me. Also, it did feel that X-Men 3 was starting to suffer from sequelism–that thing where each movie becomes less than the one before it.

    I haven’t seen Origins: Wolverine yet. That concept switch you mention is a real head scratcher. I had thought that, that part of his ^origin^ was pretty firmly established in the comics That they would change that in the movie named “Origins” is puzzling in the extreme. And it’s certainly not something that makes me want to run out and watch the movie.

  3. The best part of the first three X-Men movies were stories from the 1970s and early 1980s. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a 1990s story.

    (And in fact during the 1990s they added the “claws were there all along” idea in the comic, even though they were explicitly NOT there all along in the 1980s…)

  4. Wyrd, I have seen all three of the original X-Men movies, and I have to admit they all left me rather unmoved. Certainly thinking about them now, having since seen Avengers (four times!) they seem very pale, formless and lighweight in comparison. By far the best thing about them is Ian McKellan as Magneto: his magnetism (har!) lends the films a gravity they really don’t otherwise deserve — much as Christoper Lee does for The Man with the Golden Gun.

    (This reminds me that I really ought to write about Avengers some time soon, particularly by comparison with the X-Men movies.)

    Tom, I didn’t know about all that rewriting of the original origin. (I guess it tells us something about comic-book culture that we need a phrase like “original origin” at all!)

  5. Series “reboot’, X-Men: First Class, was certainly the highlight of all X-Men movies. Great acting (Fassenbender’s Magneto easily rivals Ian McKellen’s), good story and superb execution. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.

  6. It’s the one X-Men movie I’ve not seen. Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll keep my eyes open for it.

  7. Agreed with scockzo, First Class is rather brilliant. Michael Fassbender gives Performance Of The Century. McAvoy is also magnificent.
    So, yeah. Again, recommend you see it as soon as.

  8. Might be nice to point out First Class was directed by Matthew Vaughn, who also did the incredible Kick-Ass adaptation.
    (“The Incredible Kick-Ass” sounds like a superhero in itself)

  9. OK, good to get a second on the recommendation for First Class.

    I am not inclined ever to see Kick Ass, on the basis of Roger Ebert’s review.

  10. I saw Kick Ass. I liked it. But it’s probably not for everybody. The movie is way wrong, yes. I think though that it had a point to it. I mean: I don’t think Kick Ass was just overflowing with wrong-ness for the sake of doing it. It was another attempt to look at and deconstruct the Hero mythos kind of like the Watchman. Of course Kick Ass also had humor. But all the darkness comes from that Hero mythos deconstruction thing.

    I don’t think me and Roger Ebert would agree often about movies. I think he hated Ghostbusters too, although I could be wrong about that. Maybe he liked it. It’s been ~20 years since I saw that review.

  11. No, Ebert liked Ghostbusters. Needless to say, no reviewer is perfect, but on the whole I find he and I tend to like and dislike much the same things — so he’s a good guide for me.

  12. First Class is not, I think all *that* good and Fassbender is fine but not magnificent. The major problem I have with it is the obsession with Magneto and the tiresome “ooh, Charles wasn’t all that “good” after all” elements (not as bad as in more recent comic books though which moronically insist on him being not just flawed but almost malign, seemingly because he’s intelligent, thoughtful and ewww “old”. That attitude is everywhere now and it’s always adolescent, conservative [posing as youthful and enlightened], asinine, and ignorant. And Oh Look! they just had “boring old” Cyclops go “crazy” and actually kill Professor X! Ack!). An X-Men movie without Mags would be a refreshing change. First Class is much better than the dreadful Last Stand tho’ even if it ain’t even *close* to great. Wolverine was mediocre in the extreme, it’s a pity that the masterly Weapon X by Barry Windsor-Smith which was fleetingly referred to couldn’t have been adapted for the screen. Instead we got a muddled version of ’90s and ’00s Wolverine ideas from not-bad early Larry Hama to the pointless Origin miniseries in which it was “stunningly” revealed that Logan’s real name was the dull James Hewlett with a tragically boring backstory. Paul Cornell is to write Logan soon and he’s been pissing me off by tweely referring to him as James. Pass the sickbag! That’s as bad as calling Holmes “Sherlock”, writers may as well call Gandalf “Gandy” or “Alf” or “Whitey”!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.