|
||
This X Doesn't Mark the Spot: The Wolverine Movie Lacks the Series' Socially Significant Themes
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is shaping up as a big summer action hit. But it's a big step back from what genre fiction's been doing lately.
Big comic book and scifi movie extravaganzas can make big points about society, sometimes even catching the zeitgeist, as we saw with 2008's The Dark Knight. The X-Men series has been at the forefront of this, exploring the changing nature of humanity, our relationship with technology, and the concept of otherness in a mass society. And doing it amidst unique powers, cool tech, and some bracing action.
Unfortunately, most of that which intrigues one intellectually and moves one emotionally is missing in the fourth entry in the franchise, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
It's not a bad movie. (And it does provide an amusing explanation for one of the most famous events of the 1970s.) In fact, it is shaping up as a big hit. It's a pretty good action flick, but the movie lacks the intellectual depth and soul frequently found in the X-Men series. I was entertained. But it's going to fall far short measured against the Star Trek and Terminator movies coming later this month in the cultural significance sweepstakes.
The basic plot seems borrowed, at least in part, from Arnold Schwarzenegger's 1985 action vehicle, Commando. Somebody is killing members of Wolverine's old special ops team, and his old commanding officer visits him to discuss it. Bad things ensue.
Like the reboot of Batman, this picture is an origin story. But it explains, well, nothing, before jumping into the action.
Will.i.am, seen here in his famous musical tribute to Barack Obama, plays a teleporting mutant.
The very game Hugh Jackman, who's obviously been doing a lot of serious bodybuilding work, is quite good as usual. And you meet a lot of mutants along the way, some of whom later become part of the X-Men. There are a lot of female mutants, naturally, but the comic book series was geared to young males. One of the mutants, whose power is teleportation, is played in big movie debut by will.i.am, the Black Eyed Peas frontman perhaps best known for his star-studded musical tribute to Barack Obama. No Barack moments here.
But aside from showing off their cool powers, the movie does absolutely nothing with the deeper questions of what is causing such extreme mutations and how the development of these powers impacts the mutants' lives.
The trailer for X2: X-Men United.
Wolverine, a berserker warrior with claws and incredible healing powers, seems to settle into civilian life with nary a glitch, even though -- for reasons never explained -- he fought in every American war from the Civil War on.
Since I knew the movie lacked the depth of the others in the series, I decided to relax and enjoy it as a superhero action movie. But I'm already forgetting it. What I found worst about the movie is that the big surprise twist is totally unbelievable.
Incidentally, the movie isn't actually over when the credits roll. There's not one but two sneak endings after the credits start rolling.
Nevertheless, it's unfortunate that the movie doesn't do what at least the first two films in the series -- the third picture was something of a mess -- did well.
As genre fiction often does, comic book and scifi films have frequently gotten into major social and political themes. The X-Men series has been a leader in this.
Perhaps the problem was the choice of character for the origin story.
Wolverine has always been the most popular of the X-Men characters. He was introduced in the comic book world in the early 1970s, as a seething, resentful anti-hero type typical of the era.
In the comics, Wolverine is a runt, a five foot, three inch package of big trouble.
Star Hugh Jackman, seen here on Spanish TV, is quite a promoter.
In the movies, he's played by Jackman, a foot taller, so suave a figure that he hosted this year's Academy Awards.
But, though I enjoy his wisecracks, Jackman's Wolverine has never been one of my favorite X-"Men." I've always preferred Prof X, Professor Xavier, a powerful telepath and the leader of the X-Men, played by Patrick Stewart. (Who's also Captain Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek.) And Jean Grey, another powerful telepath, with hidden telekinetic powers, played by Famke Janssen.
Since they're the brains of the outfit, exploring their backgrounds seems much more interesting.
The trailer for the third picture in the series, X-Men: The Last Stand.
But Hollywood doesn't generally build big summer blockbusters around older intellectual guys or women, even beautiful women. Which also explains why we don't have X-Men Origins: Mystique, delving into the background of the shapeshifting mutant played by the fabulous Rebecca Romijn. Who was mostly nude, in blue body paint, in not one, or two, but three mainstream blockbusters. Which was amazing.
Oh, well.
It's too bad this X-Men picture is such a straight-out actioner. With our first black president, same-sex marriage coming to the fore, technology more and more intrusive in our lives, shifting relations with the rest of the world, this is an even better moment to look at change and reaction through the prism of the X-Men universe.
But not this time.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes ... www.newwestnotes.com.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The original X-Men comic books were based on racial inequality. In their world they've replaced the tension between races with the tension between humans and mutants, and their characters have sought peace and happiness in a world dominated by non-mutants.
The main problem with this Wolverine movie is that the story-line is horrible - probably the worst story-line of any of the modern comic book adapted movies. Even Daredevil is better (its true) - which is shocking since Hugh Jackman is perfect for this role, but even he can't save such a poor plot.
I would have liked an origin story about Storm, but like you said, the sexist movie industry doesn't launch action movies centered on female characters.
We may get to know about the young Xavier if there is a Magneto Origin movie as planned. Xavier and Magneto were friends as young men.
Okay, this is pretty ridiculous, I understand there are comic book movies with a social political message to convey ,but maybe, now go with me on this one, maybe, that wasn't the intent of X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Maybe, Marvel was looking for some more quick bucks to make and they thought to themselves "Hey, everybody likes Wolverine, let's make a movie about him."
I can't tell you enough how much I hated the Dark Knight, not because of the plot, acting, blah blah blah, but the fact that the celluloid was literaly dripping with political commentary. I always surmised if Bruce Wayne were a real person, that he would lean towards conservatism during an election, but to see three hours of Batman the cheerleader (not to be confused with joe the plumber), rah-rah-rahing all the questionable acts committed by those in the bush administration by copying them, well... to say the least it left a bitter taste in my mouth. Better for the movie to have just been about Batman and the Joker and let all the soccer moms bash it on their online forums because it's a comic book movie, instead of turning into a sean hannity program.
Let's not encourage Hollywood to a$$ r@pe our beloved comic book heroes for the sake of some self-important pretentious director, writer, (or worse) actor pushing their political views on an audience who simply want nothing more than to be entertained.
See William Bradley's Profile
Your assumption was that Bruce Wayne is really a Joe the Plumber-style right-winger?
Ooops.
Well, as I've previously reported, Dark Knight is one of Barack Obama's favorite movie.
Which would make your assumption, well, wrong ... :(
Actually, Dark Knight caught the zeitgeist which helped enable the defeat of the right-wing.
You do realize of course that Bruce Wayne is a fictional character don't you? Also, Barack Obama is President, not a comic book or movie script writer, so just because the President liked the movie doesn't mean my "assumption", is any more "wrong" than your "assumption". I'm sure we can go tit for tat based on the various story arcs in the DC Universe that would either support or counter my "IF Bruce Wayne were a real person, then he'd most likely vote conservative." statement, not to mention the whole "advanced interrogation techniques" and "warrantless wiretapping" that Batman committed, in the Dark Knight movie. Is that what would President Obama do in Batman's situation, or are these actions more in keeping with another certain former President we know so well?
Bryan Singer's adaptation was horribly weak with some terrible casting decisions, especially Halle Berry and James Marsden. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
See William Bradley's Profile
Halle Berry, a friendly acquaintance since Bulworth, is an Oscar-winning actress. Maybe she needed better direction, as she's had in the past. Or a better-written role.
She is a great actress, but I think she was either entirely wrong for or wasted on the storm role, I can't decide. I think she was just used to pull audiences and no thought was given to the portrayal of the character.
Frankly, anybody that hoped for/expected any sort of (even middling - the Singer movies don't hold up that well upon repeat viewings) social commentary/insight from a movie whose trailer featured not one but two(!!) shots where the camera pulled back into the sky dramatically while Wolverine cradled a dead body in his arms probably hoped to see a different movie than the one that was made.
Oh, well. There's always tomorrow.
See William Bradley's Profile
That would be ... correct.
Still, a fun action flick.
>probably hoped to see a different movie than the one that was made
The movie you were looking for ended up on the cutting room floor. The drama and the angst of the X-Men can't be shown when you have 8 - 50 mutants running around. The thing that works in comics is that every month you get more information about the characters. You get to see that Logan struggles with being an animal, that he doesn't want to lose control, but that until he does he is dramatically less effective in combat. So to show that you would need a half an hour with the love interest, you would need 10 -15 minutes of scenes after combat in the wars where he talks to his brother, you would need back story, something that makes a 107 minute move into a 150 minute one... like Batman. They should have risked some of the action junkies and done the story correctly. There is one line that is a throw away in the movie but is central to the entire culture of the X-Men and all mutant based comics... "They are hunting us." Will i am says it to Logan. The humans hunting the Mutants, the place in the world for mutants, the search for acceptance, all of that is missing because they made a choice to go from 3 hour movie to a 107 minute slash fest. I liked the movie I gave it a B+ but it could have been an A.
See William Bradley's Profile
The Singer movies hold up pretty well.
However, the concept has always been stronger than the execution.
Singer is not strong on action.
I'll just say what I tell everyone I know who questions my taste in movies (action films, sci-fi and fantasy, thrillers, pretty much everything movie critics hate)
I can read. If I want an interesting plot, deep and involved characters, and meaningful social commentary through the medium of fiction, I'm going to read a book. When I go to a movie, I want to see stuff blow up, I want to see either people of aliens being graphically dismembered, and I want to see cool special effects and CGI.
Movies made for no purpose other than to win an Oscar (you can spot them easily, they combine "The" with a random noun like Wrestler or Soloist) bore me to tears.
And Wolverine is the coolest X-Man, bar none.
See William Bradley's Profile
While making this artificial distinction between books and pop culture movies may make you feel sophisticated, it doesn't do much else.
Seriously? Really? Look, there is a power in movies that is different than books. Not better, different, and when it is captured it is spectacular. The Dark Knight, Star Wars, Terminator 2, Jurassic Park. These are excellent movies with both action and a message. As for the Soloist, it was a book that was made into a movie. The other point is to share a powerful story in a new medium, the third for this particular topic. It started out as newspaper, then as a book, now as a movie. Each permutation is different and powerful in its own right.
J
See William Bradley's Profile
Very well stated.
What do you really expect?
A) Bryan Singer left the franchise, which totally destroyed it.
B) It's a typical summer blockbuster - lots of action, not much going for the brain.
C) There's no reason to expect more.
See William Bradley's Profile
Bryan Singer's the only director who can do X-Men? I don't think so.
His two films are the only ones with deeper issues that underly the main message of the movie. Brett Crapner did nothing, then appeased fanboys with that stupid Juggernaut line. And Wolverine, as much as I enjoyed it, was not up to par with the first two in the series.
I have yet to see someone do it better than Bryan. When I do, then my mind will change.
All the X-Men movies have been fairly disappointing.
They got significantly worse when Brian Singer left the franchise.
They've always been hit and miss.
The first movie was good in the sense that it touched upon the Magneto/Xavier philosophical difference. The second one was good mainly due to Brian Cox and his performance as Stryker. The third was interesting when it covered the "mutant cure".
But they also have also made some huge errors such as casting Halle Berry, focusing excessively on the dull Jean Grey, revealing too much about Wolverine, and most absurdly, making Rogue into an annoying kid.
See William Bradley's Profile
Yeah, I don't love any of the movies, though I do like the first two.
And I certainly don't dislike Wolverine. It just lacks the other things I've written about.
Saw it. Liked it. Not loved. Liked.
Missed the second surprise post-ending to make it to the only post-ending that mattered: Front of the line at the restroom.
See William Bradley's Profile
Apparently, there were two alternate "second endings," alternating in different theaters. None of which I can talk about because of spoilers.
Not to give anything away either, but the one I saw had a Humvee in it, and wasn't worth the gimmick.
There were plenty of other plot loose ends that warranted an after-wipe.
I went expecting to see an action packed movie about a character I've enjoyed since childhood.
I did not go looking for a love story, social commentary, or even deep intrigue and mystery.
I got just what I expected. Hugh Jackman played the character to the hilt and I was thrilled
with the Gambit character. A very good movie.
I've always found Wolverines back story to be boring, the loner brooding type gets old quick. There were plenty of other characters they could have done, if they hadn't bastardized Rouge's story in the first movie that would have been a great one. Remy Lebeau any one? Or how about Dark Phoenix.....
See William Bradley's Profile
The guy who played Gambit did very well.
That would be Taylor Kitsch.
Saying that these movies miss the "essence" of the comic is like the classical guitarist talking low about Jimi Hendrix.
See William Bradley's Profile
This is a little more like rhythm guitar than Jimi Hendrix ...
Hey, I'm all for gtrad school. I think it's just awesome that grad students learn to think about everything in terms of analysis. And if folks want to watch the new X Men movie, and then head to the coffee house and dissect it like a frog, that's absolutely fine by me.
For my part, I find it kind of funny that anyone would describe the first three X Men movie as "deep." I thinkn I might have found them deep if I were a child, but I am not.
All over the place, I'm reading reviews like this one. Wolverine lacked the social depth of the other three. Its plot was too thin. The relationships were...
Okay excuse me I had to stop and dry heave a little. Because all I did was go to the theatre to watch Wolverine fight some mutants, and that's what I got. It wasn't deep, because it was just Wolverine fighting some mutants. And X Men wasn't deep either, unless you had never seen or read anything before.
And the plot was a little silly - that's how comic books are, too.
All of this might make me simple for thoroughly enjoying it. It might mean that I can't detect depth, or that I don't care about it. Or it might mean that everyone else could stand to lighten up if they want to enjoy comic book movies, cause that's all this was, and I thought it sort of rocked.
I saw it Sunday. It doesn't rock. It's an average action movie. If it didn't say "X-Men" it would do half the business.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
But all I said was that "I thought it sort of rocked." Meaning that's what I thought.
You can think other stuff. Knock yourself out.
See William Bradley's Profile
Umm ... two-thirds.
Pride in density always amazes me. If you want to pound a banana on your head, go for it. But don't sneer at those of us who eat them.
(Pt. 2)
Instead of remaining faithful to the Windsor-Smith version, the movie opted for, as mentioned above, an easily digestible revenge story that periodically came to tidy conclusions (with a deux ex machina, to boot!) I can't help but wonder what X-Men Origins: Wolverine would've been like it if had, say, incorporated the limited palette with red and orange overtones found within the pages of MCP (think of the aesthetic scope, and consequent edginess, of Batman/Dark Knight, Sin City, or non-comics such as Fight Club or Se7en.)
And I guess this leads ultimately to the problem I have with the other X-Men movies (Even 1 and 2?! Yeah, I know - blasphemy) - the lack of a compelling enough visual component, on par with the comics themselves, that contributes to the overall story being told, while simultaneously mirroring the complexities inherent in the X-Men's stories. It's not about being more dark, or less CG. Rather, it's about doing justice to the medium that the ideas for these movies were born from. Otherwise, when asking about the latest X-Men movie, people will simply be told to go read the book.
You have to remember that not everyone going to see this movie is a fan of the comics. For a film to be successful, it needs to appeal to as large an audience as possible.
Fans first, always.
That how a film gets and keeps its legs.
The creatives that don't get that probably got their jobs through nepotism and not talent.
See William Bradley's Profile
None of the X-Men movies are great.
We're about to get to what I really care about, i.e., Star Trek and Terminator.
(Pt 1.)
I was also disappointed in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I think ultimately, the movie failed by being too much like the last three X-Men movies, while not drawing enough from the origin story's source: its comic book counterpart.
In the comics, we are introduced to the Weapon X program in Marvel Comics Presents #72-84 via the incomparable, and highly stylized storytelling of Barry Windsor-Smith. One significant aspect of Windsor-Smith's version is the level of mystery and surreality that is maintained while telling Logan's story. Despite being an origin story, so much is left-unexplained; through a recurring hallucinogenic state, the reader shares in Logan's disorientation and uncertainty. Not only is this acceptable, but it also contributes to the greater psychological dimension that is within the story - some of the best parts of Wolverine's origin are in his head!
See William Bradley's Profile
Aside from the fact that the latest is not at all like those movies, I entirely agree with you ... :)
> photo
(Pt 1.)
I was also disappointed in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I think ultimately, the movie failed by being too much like the last three X-Men movies, while not drawing enough from the origin story's source: its comic book counterpart.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
