You might think of it as the year of a Presidential election, or the Summer Olympics. Or you might be preparing to set up your festive Leap Day lawn decorations. But I tend to think of 2016 as the year we get three films from the X-Men franchise, which is a feat even the Marvel Cinematic Universe won't pull off until 2017. Slackers.
I did my MCU Phase One and Two retrospectives, it only seems fair I give the same attention to the franchise that really started it all. Yeah, I know. Technically Blade got there first, but that was before the nerds took over Hollywood, and the average movie goer didn't even realize they were seeing a comic book-based film. 2000's X-Men was the real gamble. And I truly believe that everyone from Christian Bale to Charlie Cox owes a respectful nod to that first film.
So let's have a look back at the first seven films, and then I'll make my predictions about the three that are coming out this year.
X-Men (2000)
Prior to 2000, comic book movies were the spectacular Superman and Superman II (do your f**king research Zack Snyder!) The respectively broken and dead in the water III and IV. And then the Burton/Schumacher Batman franchise, which was NEVER that good in the first place and still managed to devolve into a migraine inducing disappointment. X-Men had a lot to prove.
For one thing, the mainstream audience wasn't watching the amazing X-Men cartoon series in the nineties, which meant that the film would have to be able to explain what mutation was. Another thing, Magneto was a pre-requisite. His character has always been a complicated, sometimes-revered-as-heroic villain. You wouldn't have the luxury of killing him at the end of the film. And thirdly, this was a financial risk for FOX. They weren't just going to dump money into the project with blind confidence that the return would pay off.
$75 million is certainly more money than I'll ever see in my life, but director Bryan Singer was having to spread that over a large cast, huge set pieces, and massive special effects in a time before CGI had really found its identity. So Singer did what he was good at. He focused on character.
This film could probably not be made today, what with the audience's expectations on action to non-action ratio; which makes the film all the more special. X-Men is practically a drama. The action scenes are pretty good, but the acting between Patrick Stewart and Sir Ian McKellen really sizzle. Anna Paquin's Rogue was never written quite as well as she was in this first film, but boy is she great here.
This was also the movie where the world discovered Hugh Jackman. We take his Wolverine for granted now but he really brought the character to life in a way we weren't expecting. There's always a danger of making Wolverine too close to a Clint Eastwood trope, but Jackman finds the humorous beats and the charm. You can believe Jean Grey would flirt with the bad boy.
There are a couple of weaknesses. Halle Berry is meh as Storm. Hell, I think she's meh as a person, but in the entire film series she's easily the most replaceable performer (it should have been Angela Bassett, and no, she wasn't too old). Singer also never really knows what to do with Tyler Mane's Sabretooth. But in the end, this movie succeeds in all of the right places. It was a long three years to have to wait for the follow-up.
X2 (2003)
Most people I talk to (about this anyway) agree that X2 was that highly sought after example of a sequel that surpasses the original. I don't entirely agree. I felt X2 matched X-Men in quality, but for different reasons. If I had to choose, I'd lean a tad toward the first movie just because the characters were so rich in presentation. But the sequel really excels on the action front, which is an understandably fair trade.
By 2003 every blockbuster was tapping into The Matrix for inspiration, but the opening sequence with Nightcrawler's attack on the Oval Office may be the most visually impressive. My favorite scene, however, is when Stryker's soldiers invade Xavier's mansion. Action and comedy share a dominant chromosome based on timing. I lose interest in action movies that rely on hyperactive editing and shaky camera movement to convey adrenaline. But when you master timing, you can do next to nothing in the scene and still evoke a sense of thrill from your audience.
Case in point, you have the build of suspense where the Harry Potter looking kid looks confused at the soldier who shoots him with a tranquilizer and he drops. Beat. Wolverine perks up, sensing something is wrong and leaves Bobby alone in the kitchen. Beat. Kitty Pryde wakes up and drops quietly through the floor, scurrying through a wall and a soldier. Beat. Each step is a build of tension like the chain that carries a roller coaster to the top of its first drop. Cut back to Bobby in the kitchen where he's seconds away from taking a shot by another soldier. Saved by Wolverine, who mutters "You picked the wrong house. bub." This is the apex of tension. Siryn screams. This is the tension release, or the big drop. It gives me chills every time.
The rest of the movie is a really fun ride, but the lack of Cyclops through the entire middle section has never sat well with me. I always liked James Marsden in the role, and he has the unfair burden of having to show up at the last minute and emote the loss of his loved one (without the expression of his eyes). His screen time is almost as much a casualty as the plot giving Jean Grey enough to do for us to really care about her death.
Both of these issues could have been smoothed over in part three, given the right storyline. But, you know. *sigh*
X-Men: The Last Stand
It's really hard to treat this movie fairly. I don't want to defend Brett Ratner, as he's since proven himself to be an asshole, but I really don't blame him for this particular fiasco. In case you've forgotten, Bryan Singer wanted to film X3 and X4 back to back, but FOX wanted to wrap everything up as a trilogy. And somewhere in there, Singer signed on to do Superman Reruns, taking James Marsden with him. And nobody came out with any dignity.
But let's back it up a bit. Ratner actually does a competent job of mimicking Singer's directorial style for much of the film. And the story has two major arcs going simultaneously: the mutant cure and the Dark Phoenix.
The mutant cure arc is really pretty good. If the whole movie had focused on it, we could have had more Rogue, more Xavier, and maybe a little more freaking Cyclops. And then they could pull out the Dark Phoenix in the final scenes and end on a cliff hanger. Because, dear God, the Dark Phoenix arc has to be the most wasted opportunity in any comic book based movie.
Famke Janssen is a wonderful actress, and she'd spent two movies holding herself back in the role. I was so looking forward to seeing her go full Xenia Onatopp nuts in this movie. But instead, they had to make her a zombie until they needed to kill off another major character prematurely. I wound up leaving the theater feeling indifferent. And I still do. In fact, I've never bothered owning this movie on DVD.
I won't go so far as to say that the movie is bad. Ghost Rider was bad. Daredevil was dumb, but somehow a step above bad. A step above that would be Spider-Man 3 which tried really hard but fell apart under its own weight. X-Men: The Last Stand would then be the next step into the realm of passable. I'll admit out of all the X-Men films, this one is the least good and most easily skippable. But when you compare it to the low points in the Star Trek franchise, I think we've all come down on it a little too hard.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)
Members of the jury, I grant you that this movie has its flaws. Indeed, as the prosecution has been so avid to point out, Deadpool's character was clearly mishandled. The defense accepts this complaint without question. The prosecution has also thoroughly demonstrated the number of questionable choices made to the film's production; the replacing of Tyler Mane as Liev Schreiber, Gambit's screen time, will.i.am, and so on. These details are not in dispute.
But it is the defense's opinion that all the prosecution has proven is that X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a flawed movie, not a bad one as the lawsuit claims. On the contrary, the elements of the film which work hold together very well.
Case in point, Hugh Jackman easily could be phoning it by now, but he's still playing Wolverine as multilayered as he always has. People have been clamoring for a Wolverine solo film since the franchise began, and this movie delivers on exactly what it promised. Wolverine. Not just his origin story, but a complete character study of who he is and what he isn't.
Liev Schreiber's cruel but intelligent Sabretooth serves as a perfect counterbalance to Wolverine's compassionate side, while mirroring his animal instincts. Silverfox brings out his charm. Wraith, his sense of camaraderie. And Stryker serves as a psychological villain as opposed to a physical threat (of which Wolverine has practically none). Ultimately the point of the movie is to see Wolverine be Wolverine, and to give us a fun time in the process. This movie delivers.
It is understandable why many people walked away from the movie feeling like some element that they cared about had been presented incorrectly. We're all human. We're allowed human reactions. But it is an injustice to make the leap from our personal reactions to an assessment of the overall quality. I submit that if you take an honest look at the elements herein that were handled correctly, and compare them to those where the proverbial ball was dropped, you'll find that the strengths clearly outweigh the weaknesses. And as an unbiased jury, it will be your sworn duty to render a verdict of 'good movie' to X-Men Origins: Wolverine. A flawed, but entertainingly fun superhero film.
The defense rests.
X-Men: First Class (2011)
The short version is: I thought this was a really awesome movie that I've never had any interest in owning or even rewatching.
We all know what this is about. FOX legally has to keep making X-Men films or the ownership reverts back to Marvel. As much as I would love that to happen, the MCU is already getting kind of crowded. And as long as FOX keeps doing movies of this quality I'm not going to gripe. Much.
The problem is, I really want to see the story move forward, not just keep filling in gaps. The Last Stand sadly wrote the franchise into a corner, so it's next to impossible to move beyond the alleged ending point. I loved Wolverine's origin story, but I probably would have lost interest in seeing Magneto's solo film (like FOX was planning). First Class manages to knock that off the checklist, along with Charles and Mystique, and the formation of the X-Men.
Kevin Bacon is also quite brilliant as Sebastian Shaw, and Rose Byrne makes for a really engaging Moira MacTaggert. In fact, if we could just get rid of January Jones, I'd have no qualms about the cast list.
So why don't I like this movie more? Well in addition to feeling like filler, these aren't the mutants I fell in love with. Older Xavier is the true Xavier. Just like older Magneto is the real version. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender both play their roles flawlessly, but it honestly seems like we're watching the B-team; almost like the franchise went to television. It's hard to get attached to Raven when you already know how she's going to wind up, and it's hard to worry about Hank when you know he's destined to survive into the future (present?).
In the end, we're really seeing FOX do a very good job holding on to their cash cow, but the franchise is just kind of existing now.
The Wolverine (2013)
I think I saw this one at the dollar theater, so I wound up missing the hype wave surrounding the movie's first month. It basically amounted to "THIS is the Wolverine film I wanted to see! They took it seriously. No boxing match with Blob."
Certainly the movie was a different flavor than Origins and I respect that some people responded better to this one. But I came away from it suspecting that a chunk of the praise was related to the fact that this movie wasn't Origins, and nothing else. And I truly feel that the hype covered up the fact that this movie was actually really boring. Maybe not Superman Returns boring, but the fight on top of the train is the ONLY scene that has stayed with me.
Origins seemed like a movie that was very much the epitome of Jackman's Wolverine, while Not X-Men: The Wolverine was closer akin to the character in the comics. The thing is, I've never liked the Wolverine of the comics. I find brute strength character traits to be tedious, and every Wolverine appearance I've read has focused on that element. It makes him an unsympathetic character.
Look at James Bond. He's not a sympathetic character either, but he's a likable one. He's an escapist metaphor for the notion of really getting your fists dirty but being able to shake it off in seconds and go back to being charming. We never really worry about his survival, so much a s take an interest in how he gets out of the scrapes he's been put in. His stories are fun. They have to be, or we'd lose interest.
In Wolverine's case, what are we supposed to be rooting for? The moment where he has his berserker rage isn't enough of a motive. He has to get that mad because of something in story context that we were rooting for, otherwise it's just brutishness. This movie makes no use of Jackman's natural charm, and it doesn't have the fun factor to offset the dreariness of the plot. While Last Stand was the least good of the whole franchise, The Wolverine is the least interesting. I'm not sure which is worse.
Certainly the movie was a different flavor than Origins and I respect that some people responded better to this one. But I came away from it suspecting that a chunk of the praise was related to the fact that this movie wasn't Origins, and nothing else. And I truly feel that the hype covered up the fact that this movie was actually really boring. Maybe not Superman Returns boring, but the fight on top of the train is the ONLY scene that has stayed with me.
Origins seemed like a movie that was very much the epitome of Jackman's Wolverine, while Not X-Men: The Wolverine was closer akin to the character in the comics. The thing is, I've never liked the Wolverine of the comics. I find brute strength character traits to be tedious, and every Wolverine appearance I've read has focused on that element. It makes him an unsympathetic character.
Look at James Bond. He's not a sympathetic character either, but he's a likable one. He's an escapist metaphor for the notion of really getting your fists dirty but being able to shake it off in seconds and go back to being charming. We never really worry about his survival, so much a s take an interest in how he gets out of the scrapes he's been put in. His stories are fun. They have to be, or we'd lose interest.
In Wolverine's case, what are we supposed to be rooting for? The moment where he has his berserker rage isn't enough of a motive. He has to get that mad because of something in story context that we were rooting for, otherwise it's just brutishness. This movie makes no use of Jackman's natural charm, and it doesn't have the fun factor to offset the dreariness of the plot. While Last Stand was the least good of the whole franchise, The Wolverine is the least interesting. I'm not sure which is worse.
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Mystique is my favorite mutant, but only when she's used correctly (and that's a big 'when'). I rather enjoyed Rebecca Romijn's serpentine presence in the first two and a half films. Jennifer Lawrence? Well...she's fine I guess. Honestly, I don't fawn over her as an actress like so many people on my Facebook threads do. I'll probably lose it the next time I hear the phrase 'down to earth' uttered in the same sentence as Lawrence. I think she's fine as an actress, I just don't find her all that special.
But interestingly enough, Lawrence's star took off with The Hunger Games and the Academy Awards between the first and second films in this B-reel trilogy. As a delightful result, Mystique's role was obligatorily upgraded for Days of Future Past. I'll take it.
The movie itself was great(ish), but like First Class it really didn't leave me feeling much of anything. It's nice to see Stewart and McKellen back, and I loved the cameos at the end, but that's really the batch of performers I wanted to spend my time with.
The Quicksilver sequence was great, nearly rivaling Nightcrawler's X2 scene, but it's also the film's best card. Unfortunately they play it too early, and the rest of the film feels like it loses some momentum. And at the end when Charles had Magneto at his mercy, he just lets him go? Inexcusable. He should have at least re-incarcerated him.
The bottom line is, this movie is good. I liked it. I wanted to love it, but I liked it. I liked the fact that the Sentinels came across as a real threat without feeling cartoony. Peter Dinklage made a great Boliver Trask. And it was nice to see the damage done in Last Stand get wiped from the slate. But in the end it just feels like we're REALLY trying to reclaim the greatness of old and not quite getting there.
But interestingly enough, Lawrence's star took off with The Hunger Games and the Academy Awards between the first and second films in this B-reel trilogy. As a delightful result, Mystique's role was obligatorily upgraded for Days of Future Past. I'll take it.
The movie itself was great(ish), but like First Class it really didn't leave me feeling much of anything. It's nice to see Stewart and McKellen back, and I loved the cameos at the end, but that's really the batch of performers I wanted to spend my time with.
The Quicksilver sequence was great, nearly rivaling Nightcrawler's X2 scene, but it's also the film's best card. Unfortunately they play it too early, and the rest of the film feels like it loses some momentum. And at the end when Charles had Magneto at his mercy, he just lets him go? Inexcusable. He should have at least re-incarcerated him.
The bottom line is, this movie is good. I liked it. I wanted to love it, but I liked it. I liked the fact that the Sentinels came across as a real threat without feeling cartoony. Peter Dinklage made a great Boliver Trask. And it was nice to see the damage done in Last Stand get wiped from the slate. But in the end it just feels like we're REALLY trying to reclaim the greatness of old and not quite getting there.
So that coincidentally catches us up to the present. We have one final Wolverine movie to allegedly look forward to. But this year will no doubt present the establishing trio of films that indicate whether or not FOX is just beating a dead horse. Here are my predictions for how the franchise is or isn't going to work:
Deadpool (2016)
Ryan Reynolds could not be more suited to play this role, and this is the movie that is bound to breathe new life into the whole franchise. People have wanted a Deadpool movie since 2009, but truthfully, it just wasn't time. Now it's time.
Really the only thing that could derail this train is if Deadpool proves to be much better in small doses than carrying a full feature. I don't predict that will happen, but it's always a possibility. But with a sequel already in development, the production team seems pretty confident. And damn it, we need to finally see Mr. Sinister on the big screen!
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)
We've been needing to see Apocalypse for a while now. Sadly, it's coming in the First Class timeline instead of the real one. It would have been so nice to see Ian McKellen's Magneto face off against a bigger bad than himself.
This film will end the trilogy that I've been willing to tolerate. I'm not really looking forward to this movie, so much as I'm just accepting it.
Gambit (2016)
Just, no.
Channing Tatum is bland. He may be pretty to look at, but he just doesn't have the charm Hollywood seems to think he does. He sure as hell isn't Gambit worthy.
But even factoring that out, this movie is just too late. The franchise will have brought two trilogies to a close already, with a third leaving next year. We've seen beloved mutants killed and brought back to life. Even Hugh Jackman is hanging it up. Lauren Shuler Donner really thinks Gambit is going to be the new Wolverine, but he's walking in to the party just as it's winding down. Who are you? DC?
If they'd stuck with Taylor Kitsch I'd be willing to give it a shot. Channing Tatum is a big non merci, mon amie.
No comments:
Post a Comment