Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Filed under: Action, New Releases, Theatrical Reviews, New in Theaters, 20th Century Fox, Comic/Superhero/Geek
In the early 1980s I was an "X-Men" fanatic, eagerly devouring every comic book I could get my hands on. But my favorite, and it remains my favorite to this day, was a 1982 four-issue mini-series written by Chris Claremont, drawn by Frank Miller and devoted exclusively to Wolverine. In it, Wolvie goes to Japan to find out what happened to his true love Mariko. He's a magnificent warrior and he understands Japan's ancient codes and rules but also understands his own raging animal instincts and his need to abandon the rules. He constantly battles these two sides, and in one sublime image, after a fight, he smoothes the disturbed pebbles in a Zen garden, making the connection between chaos and order.
Sadly, there's nothing in the new X-Men Origins: Wolverine even remotely as good or as interesting as that one image. This Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) no longer struggles between his two sides. He's smack dab on the side of good, and beholden to the unwritten Hollywood rule, which says that no hero can kill anyone in cold blood (only in self-defense, or in response to senseless acts of cruelty and violence). Sure, he can rage and howl from time to time, but he must pull back at the last second -- to set a good example for the kiddies, I guess. To spur him to action, the film brutally dispatches everyone who's nice to him, from his kind-hearted father/guardian in the opening flashback to the sweet farmer couple that gives him refuge, to his own sweetheart Kayla Silverfox (Lynn Collins). So there's some bad foreshadowing for you: if you help an old lady across the street or tell a romantic story about the moon, you're toast.
The plot has Wolverine -- a.k.a. Logan -- growing up on the run alongside his older brother Victor Creed (Liev Schreiber); we see them fighting in the American Civil War, World War II and Vietnam, before Victor starts turning recklessly violent. Logan walks out, but years later he is forced back into the fray to avenge his loved ones. His old boss, Col. Stryker (Danny Huston), offers to help by lacing Logan's skeleton with "adamantium," an indestructible alloy. This will also change his original "bone claws" into new, razor-sharp blades. Unfortunately, there's a sinister deception behind it all.
If Logan is all good, his brother (soon to be known as Sabretooth) is one of those paper-thin, one-dimensional villains who spends the entire movie devoting himself to pure evil for no reason; his behavior consists of sneering and chortling and saying things like "Well, well, well..." There's very little emotional, fraternal connection between the two. They could never sit down for coffee together the way that Batman and the Joker could have in The Dark Knight (2008). The movie's whitewashing of all the gray areas between good and evil is just one side effect of its dubious approach. I think that most comic book/superhero fans would agree that the "origin" part of the movie is the dullest part, which is why the sequels are almost always better: X2: X-Men United (2002), Spider-Man 2 (2004), The Dark Knight, etc.
But now we have an entire two hours devoted to nothing but origin, and all the subsequent exposition and ham-fisted dialogue that goes with it. Every line feels lazily copied from other movies. (They even bring out old chestnuts like "We had a deal!" and "Let's do this!") The screenplay was co-written by David Benioff and Skip Woods, each with a list of lousy credits (one exception: Benioff's superb 25th Hour). Besides the dialogue, the writers also throw in a few plot holes, one glaring math error, two "surprise" last-minute rescues, and several stupid ideas, such as Stryker having to manually type out commands to his new evil mutant soldier.
This dud was directed by Gavin Hood, who inexplicably won a Best Foreign Language Oscar for the awful Tsotsi (2005). He can't seem to find a groove either in South African neo-realist art house films or Hollywood blockbuster sequels. He directs with a kind of glum soullessness, throwing in auto pilot action sequences and less-than-seamless visual FX. Bryan Singer came to the first two films in the series, X-Men (2000) and X2 -- the latter still one of the three best superhero movies of all time -- and brought with him a genuine love for the characters as well as a feel for their liberal tale of intolerance. Singer was able to find connections to the modern world (mutants get the same treatment as gays), but Hood clearly has no interest in this. The paradox of Stryker's mutant son sparking his father's hatred of all things mutant is glossed over in one or two lines of dialogue.
Real-life comic book readers probably identify more personally with Spider-Man, and his awkward existence as Peter Parker, but Wolverine is just as popular for more primal reasons. He represents the bridge between unguarded feelings and polite behavior, and the frustration and confusion we may feel at having to choose one side over the other. The saddest thing about X-Men Origins: Wolverine is that it's all polite behavior. It's pre-planned, committee-made, audience-tested and risk-free, with no room for authentic, messy, personal emotions. The movie never takes the chance that, even if Wolverine does something horrible in the heat of the moment, we may forgive him -- and still love him.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
4-30-2009 @ 10:37PM
YouFaceTheTick said...
"They could never sit down for coffee together the way that Batman and the Joker could have in The Dark Knight (2008). The movie's whitewashing of all the gray areas between good and evil is just one side effect of its dubious approach."
Wow. That's painfully silly. The Joker in The Dark Knight was a one-dimensional sneering loon. He had no depth. No personality beyond being one of those men "who just wants to see the world burn." If not for Ledger's moronic death he wouldn't have received an Oscar nomination, let alone an award for his ham-handed (albeit fun) villain.
Wolverine looks bad and it's sad to hear they've made the main character even more antiseptic than in the three X-men movies (he never seemed that rebellious or dangerous in the movies).
Anything to say about the other characters?
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 12:03AM
RoK said...
Have you completely lost it. Your Tick has lost it's Tock. Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight was historically brillant. Death or no death, Ledger earned that award. From a psychiatric point of view, he was dead on for his performance of a psychotic multiple personality killer. Try again.
5-01-2009 @ 1:09AM
YouFaceTheTick said...
Rok - he was entertaining. But a deep character? Not even close. We finished the film knowing as much about the character as the moment it started - he's nuts. That's hardly a character who can have a cup of coffee with his nemesis. Ledger's performance was hammy and had he not killed himself (accidentally or otherwise) he would not have been given a golden boy.
5-01-2009 @ 9:51AM
Kevin said...
You conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Sure, there isn't a ton of emotional depth to the joker, but thats not a requisite for A) an unbelievably interesting character and/or B) an oscar worthy performance. The Joker is supposed to be a lunatic who pushes the other characters in the plot beyond their comfort zone to challenge their views on life/justice/etc. Was there really that much depth to Hannibal Lector? I agree with your premise, but Ledgers portrayal was incredible and sucked you into the film and the deeper points of the plot without himself being a deep character. Furthermore, what are talking about when you say they couldn't sit down and have coffee together? Perhaps the best scene in the whole movie was the two of them in the interrogation room. If you are taking "coffee" that literally then you're clearly missing the point of Jeffreys statement, which is that the most interesting villians are the ones you could see actually talking to and challenging the main characters ideals (as opposed to paper thin villians who simply blow up the good guys and murder their wives). So yeah, the Jokers not the deepest character (I don't think we'll see a scene in a batman movie where the jokers falls in love with some kid or cries at the end of Steel Magnolias) but that doesn't make ledgers performance any less amazing or his accolades any less deserved.
4-30-2009 @ 11:19PM
Bubbameister33 said...
I pretty much thought they already made 3 Wolverine movies with all the screen time he got in the X-Men movies.
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 1:41AM
Andy said...
Yeah, sadly...pretty much spot on. It really feels like a big committee sequel.
Everything is so completely throw-away. I won't give away a bunch of spoilers, but people die in this movie and it should really rock your ass off, but you just don't really care because the movie doesn't seem to care either.
It's one of those movies that are a shame because you can see how with a bit less meddling from above, a bit better script, and in better hands like Singer's, there's no reason it couldn't have been very good.
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 1:55AM
Andy said...
Oh boy, more people crawling out of the woodwork to hate on The Dark Knight because it became popular/populist.
The backlash machine is incredibly predictable. "I was the first to hate The Dark Knight...I thought it was crap the third time I saw it."
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 10:47AM
Bubbameister33 said...
+1. That was funny.
5-01-2009 @ 2:09AM
shadowracer said...
Too bad Marc Forester didn't direct it. Then people would just assume it was good because of the franchise associated with it.
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 7:48AM
Lisa said...
Who cares how may Wolverine movies "they've" made ....God I could watch him all day ! He's beautiful!
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 9:42AM
BloodwerK said...
I'll wait to pass judgement until I see it, but I kinda expected as much. I could easily ignore the stupid things like including the bone claws and secondary mutations, but not if the story is bad. As a reader of the X-Men from way back, and a fan of Wolverine for just as long, it's sad to see what I have been seeing about this movie. It really is looking more and more like Star Trek is going to be the best one of the summer...
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 9:56AM
Kevin said...
Damn, this is a shame. I was hoping they were finally going to cut loose and have wolverine be totally badass. We kinda got a hint of that in the mansion during X-2 when Wolverine goes nuts and starts killing all the military personnel. That scene was hands down the best of the three movies (IMHO of course) due to the ridiculous coolness of Wolverine. When I heard they were making an origin story I was hoping it would just be a 2 hour bloodbath of wolverine going nuts and killing all the bad guys. If he's not doing that then whats the point? His viciousness is what sets him apart and makes him interesting. Any hero can save the day and arrest the bad guys, Wolverine was the one who did what we all wanted. I mean, is anybody else sick of Lex Luthor being flown into prison at the end of movies? I want the Supermans of the world to rip the bad guys to shreds.
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 10:53AM
Drewbacca said...
First The Dark Knight was overrated - but still rocked. (Now can we keep this topic on "Wolverine?")
Second, this installment of Wolverine flat out sucked. While I actually enjoyed seeing his origin, (even though - like almost everyone in the free world - I already knew it), the movie tanked quickly afterwords.
Not only was the story hashed together, several characters were butchered (and NOT in the cool "Sabertooth-kinda way) and the plot seemed to bounce from "highly unlikely" to "total crap."
As a fan of Wolvie, I feel completely let down.
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 10:56AM
Angie Argabrite said...
i have to disagree -- i know the movie's getting a bad rap, but i enjoyed it. it's a big, loud, fun summer movie, plus i actually liked the origins stuff. i loved the early team of stryker's men, and i don't even love hugh jackman, but thought he was decent. i'll admit to having a bias for tim riggins, er, taylor kitsch, he was what i was most excited to see, and -- though i wish he was in the movie more -- i liked how they integrated him into the plot. of course, my 'x-men' love comes from the animated series, not the comic books, so maybe i'm less bothered by some of the cartoonish aspects of the film. i'm sure more hardcore fans will be tougher critics than i am.
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 11:10AM
Jeff said...
Let's not forget how much they ruined Deadpool. Deadpool is such a fun character, and while I don't think he could justify his own movie, they can't even use him in any future films without ignoring this film entirely. This film was a mess from beginning to end, and it seemed to skip everything that was important about the Woverine character and universe.
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 11:29AM
Angie Argabrite said...
yes, you're right. i wasn't really pleased with how they handled that character. and given that ryan reynolds was playing him, they really could've done a lot better with him.
5-01-2009 @ 11:33AM
LMN0Potts said...
End of the day... they ruined an origin movie not a character. THIS WILL MAKE A LOT OF MONEY which will allow the other origin stories to get the green light (and hopefully be told better).
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 2:05PM
pete thomson said...
The movie was very non-descript. A lot of plot points seemed missed out an the story quickly dissolved into one cgi fight after another. Why for example did Wolverine not age? What were the origins of his father? It felt like they started off with a good story and jettisoned it in favor of fighting. A huge disappointment !!
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 12:55PM
phantomspots said...
Interesting you bring up the Wolvie/Japanese mini-arc, because Hugh Jackman wanted to do that movie, too:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/FalconsNest/news/?a=7206
Is this man perfect, or what? Not only does he love playing the character, he wants to play it RIGHT. *Sigh* Hot and a nerd... what a combo...
Reply
5-01-2009 @ 3:53PM
pero lana said...
Quite frankly, i think a lot was not done properly. yes, y dint he age or at least d reason and from d comic, his wife was really killed but that did not upset me as much as d picture of Lagos, Nigeria that was portrayed. Seriously, bid insult and simply unfair. If any one of the cast/director etc came to Lagos, they wud be real shocked..... not nice
Reply