“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is the best of the four “X-Men” movies because it focuses on just a couple characters rather than bouncing between a half-dozen. It took Marvel Studios nine years after the first “X-Men” to make a “solo” story that’s more suited to the movie format than the team-ups of the “X-Men” trilogy (a concept that plays better on TV, or of course, in comic books), but better late than never.
Pulling off a balancing act
Perhaps “Wolverine” will pave the way for more stories that focus on just one or two characters. The fact that it’s a box-office success will help.
But also, the filmmakers proved they can pull off a deft balancing act. “Wolverine” lets Hugh Jackman shine as the gruff softie-at-heart, giving reasons for his bad attitude (he is used in a horrific experiment where his skeleton is changed to metal, and the love of his life is killed so he’ll agree to the experiment), while peppering in funny moments. My favorite is when he cleaves a bathroom sink and sheepishly presents half of it to his farmstead hosts.
“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (2009)
Director: Gavin Hood
Writers: David Benioff, Skip Woods
Stars: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Ryan Reynolds
“Wolverine” also works in other fan favorites, so even though it’s not a blatant toy commercial like the second and third “X-Men” movies, it can still move some product. Liev Schreiber chews scenery as Wolvie’s bad brother, Victor (later known as Sabretooth), and Deadpool, Gambit and a young Cyclops have key roles.
So since “Wolverine” worked, Marvel Studios will likely give us another “X-men: Origins” story spun off from the comic books. What would you like to see?
More Rogue and Gambit in the future?
I vote for a Rogue-Gambit tragic romance. Rogue can’t touch anyone without draining their life force, which is a horrifying (to Rogue) and interesting (to me) power to have. And Gambit loves her, which is the height of tragedy.
It seems like Gambit actor Taylor Kitsch should be younger than Rogue actress Anna Paquin since he plays a high schooler in “Friday Night Lights” and Paquin was playing high schoolers a decade ago, but Kitsch, 28, is actually older than Paquin, 26. Kitsch needs to add a Cajun accent the next time he plays Gambit, though; the trademark style of speech is painfully missing from “Wolverine.” The exchanges between Cajun Gambit and Southern belle Rogue are part of the fun of the comics.
Other fans might go for a Kitty Pryde tale, since Ellen Page, who played the character briefly in “X-Men 3,” is now a big star after “Juno.”
Who do you want to see in the next “X-Men” story to focus on just one or two main characters? Share your comments below.
Comments
Trevor: How can you say this movie is better than X-Men 2? That’s the best one of the series.# Posted By trevor | 5/5/09 12:36 AM
Neal: I couldn’t disagree more, Johnboy. I cannot BELIEVE you are passing on the right, nay, the DUTY, to rip a movie that contained as many old cliches as this one does.
An Adamanthium (sp) bullet?? C’mon…you can’t do better than that?? What about the age-old brother vs. brother and teacher vs. master battle? Puh-LEEZE.
While Batman fought Ra’ahs Al Goul, at the very least it was an interesting and somewhat unpredictable split between the two.
All “Wolverine” provided was an uninteresting answer to the question the masses want answered. It’s another typical example of Hollywood putting 99.99994 percent of their effort
into the actors and special effects (yeah, you destroyed 3 Mile Island, that’s wit defined), and pieced together the script from every other comparable subjected movie.
As far as the half-dozen characters who, apparently, aren’t being developed with the depth of a wading pool, what about the black dude from the
Black-Eyed Peas, or the really fat guy who sounded like Buffalo Bob, or Pippin/Mary/Lost Guy? There’s Wolverine’s sister-in-law who had basically nothing to do with anything, but
was still given a role of prominence, or the fact there was basically no point to Gambit.
Complete and utter horseshit movie. Let me write the next one, I didn’t follow the comic books at all, and I don’t know anything about the characters, but I’m non-Union, so I’m cheaper.
Do they need more than that?# Posted By Coolong | 5/6/09 7:16 PM
John Hansen: All valid points, except that I feel they are better served as an indictment of summer movies in general rather than as criticisms of a single film. Over the years, I have gradually and subconsciously set my bar low for summer movies, so now I actually enjoy them when they are halfway decent, and I do defend “Wolverine” as being halfway decent.
There is nothing surprising at all in the “Wolverine” story (which is based on the comic books, as is the superfluous supporting cast you mentioned), so I actually drew enjoyment from Hugh Jackman’s amusing portrayal as Wolverine and the special effects (such as the sister-in-law who turns into diamond, and the fight where Deadpool keeps popping up on different sides of the combatants).
Basically, I watched the movie as if it were a light comedy, even when (no, especially when) buildings were being blown up and bad guys were being killed. When the old woman is shot in the back as she’s bringing breakfast to Wolverine, the friend sitting next to me went “ohhh” out of sympathy for the grandma, but I just chuckled at the amusingly manipulative nature of it all.
My biggest problem with the movie is Gambit, because I kind of dug the character from the comics and I also like Taylor Kitsch as Tim Riggins, but in addition to feeling like he was pasted into the script as an afterthought, the actor whiffs on the Cajun accent. He’s in the movie so that he’ll be ready to roll when they make that Rogue-Gambit movie; they got the introduction out of the way here.
Usually, I have ripped movies that people don’t think should be ripped. I felt “Dark Knight” was good, but way too overblown (what was with the been-there-done-that Two-Face story?) to deserve Oscar talk. And I found “Iron Man” tough to sit through; the villain who gets his own suit at the end was particularly painful to watch. So if those were two of the “best” comic-book movies of recent years, I say “Wolverine” stacks up well.
So we basically see “Wolverine” the same way, we just disagree on how much it deserves to be ripped into.# Posted By John Hansen | 5/6/09 8:32 PM
John Hansen: It looks like Deadpool, of all people, will get the next “X-men” movie.
http://splashpage.mtv.com/2009/05/05/exclusive-dea…# Posted By John Hansen | 5/11/09 3:33 PM
Shaune: I was greatly dissapointed with this movie. Knowing nothing about the comic books, and looking at it from only a movie standpoint.. I was bored, I laughed when I probably wasn’t supposed to, and just didn’t appreciate the movie.
Jackman did a great job as usual, as did Schreiber (sp) but it just didn’t do it for me.# Posted By shaune | 5/14/09 12:22 PM
John Hansen: But at least Wolverine is more interesting than Deadpool. What’s up with that?# Posted By John Hansen | 5/14/09 12:44 PM