Image by Dia DeLuca from Pixabay My superhero movies growing up (if you don’t consider the likes of Yoda and R2-D2 to be superheroes) were the Sam Raimi “Spider-Man” films of the early 2000s. I never even knew who the X-Men were until watching disparate episodes of the 2009 limited animated series from Marvel Studies “Wolverine and the X-Men,” and until college I had never seen any of the “X-Men” films from 20th Century Fox.
That is, until I saw the first trailer for 2017’s “Logan.” In less than two minutes, I convinced myself to prepare for the release of this gritty, dark superhero story by watching many of the “X-Men” films that preceded it. Now, with the release of (formerly) 20th Century Fox’s “The New Mutants” this weekend, I wanted to gather my thoughts on all thirteen “X-Men” films. Naturally, we begin with the original “X-Men” trilogy.” Spanning the first six years of the 2000s, the first of these two “X-Men” films seem to be dripping with nostalgic praise in comparison to much of the superhero camp that came out of the late 1990s (lookin’ at you, Joel Schumacher!). My understanding of the initial impressions of 2000’s “X-Men” and 2003’s “X2: X-Men United” are that people saw them as successful comic book movies that balanced a more grounded take on superheroes in our world with kinetic action, adequate special effects, diverse performances, and spurts of humor. However, I highly encourage those of you who have not seen these films in years to revisit them. I trust that you will come away with much of your nostalgia dashed at the sight of these attempts at good films. Arguably, the best thing about the first “X-Men” film is the dynamic between Patrick Stewart’s Charles Xavier, the messianic leader of the eponymous superhero team, and Ian McKellen’s “Magneto,” a victim of a tragic backstory who takes his hatred of humanity too far. The love-hate nature of their relationship explores the complexities of friendships injected with ideological differences. It is the one truly grounded and believable aspect of the character work in that first movie. For me, however, my favorite part of the 2000 “X-Men” film is Hugh Jackman’s performance. He fully embraces the rough-and-tough loner archetype to a tee, and he is the only one of the main cast to acknowledge the utter silliness of the world of mutants in which he exists. (Including, but not limited to, his custom nickname for Xavier as “Wheels” and making fun of the impracticality of the team’s outfits). Jackman remains consistently entertaining in every one of these movies that he’s in, no matter the extent of his screen time. The general impression of “X2” is that of a superior sequel that expands on the foundation that the first laid down and presents real stakes for the characters. While I agree that the film’s story is much improved (particularly the addition of Brian Cox as the conniving, hot-headed William Stryker), the rest of the film retains the same problems for me as its predecessor. Notably, the awkwardly flat relationship between James Marsden’s “Cyclops” and Famke Janssen’s Dr. Jean Grey, the slow and plodding action sequences, and the overstretched runtime that makes the third act far less satisfying than it should be. (Shoutout to Jackman once again, and the opening sequence in the White House). However, many fans would agree that it was not until 2006’s “X-Men: The Last Stand” that the franchise took its turn for the worst that it has struggled to come back from ever since. I could not disagree more. Let me explain. Yes, “The Last Stand” is a zany and ridiculous superhero film. However, I interpret this film within the context of the time. No way was Brett Ratner (the director replacing Bryan Singer who helmed the first two films) going to make a gritty and dark superhero tale á la “Batman Begins.” Instead, the film embraced the silly nature that the first two films tried (and failed) to ignore in favor of an over-the-top summer blockbuster. And while I do not defend “The Last Stand” as necessarily a better film than its two predecessors, I find it to be a much more fun watch. With the original “X-Men” trilogy in the bag, we move on to Fox’s first attempt at a spin-off that has gone down in film history as one of (if not the) worst comic book movies ever made: Gavin Hood’s “X-Men Origins” Wolverine from 2009. I have little to say about this movie, but that if you think this film is any worse than the original “X-Men” film or “The Last Stand,” then you should really go back and watch it. Yes, it’s poorly written, relies too much on outdated CGI, and puts some rather awful performances front and center. BUT…If you think Hugh Jackman is the best part of these movies, then this is an absolute joyride of outrageous set pieces and laugh-inducing intensity from Wolverine himself. I will not go as far to say the story of “Origins” is better than “X2” or “The Last Stand,” I find it the most enjoyably watch of these first four films and I will out-and-out defend it as a better movie than the first “X-Men” movie. PHEW! Finally, we’ve gotten through the old and outdated trash that is the “X-Men” film franchise of the 2000s. Now, onto the “good” ones. Well, some of them are good. But I’ll get there. First, the prequel/reboot/“pre-sequel” from Matthew Vaughn: “X-Men: First Class.” On my first viewing of this movie, I greatly appreciated the historical, atmospheric setting of the 1960s and the lead performances of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as the young Charles Xavier and Erik Lehnsherr, respectively. On my second viewing, I still liked these aspects of the film and came to appreciate Kevin Bacon’s villain even more. However, the movie felt like it was stuck in the 2000s with much of its cinematography and dialogue while trying to employ 2010s special effects to mixed results. Ultimately, it has cemented its place for me an “okay” movie in this franchise. The second Wolverine spinoff, released in 2013 and simply titled “The Wolverine,” is where in my opinion these movies start to get good. Once again, Hugh Jackman delivers an enticing performance as the loner (and after “The Last Stand,” apparently a hermit who befriends bears) who finds himself physically weakened and emotionally isolated in the criminal underworld of Japan. Needless to say, James Mangold pulls off what I consider to be the first modern “X-Men” movie with his writing, cinematography, editing, action, and overall direction. Anyone who’s a fan of hyped-up action movies or longs for a genre-bending samurai/superhero film, I highly recommend 2013’s “The Wolverine.” And then there was “Days of Future Past.” Bryan Singer returned to the directing chair to create what I think is one of the best of the “X-Men” films. My opinion is by no means unexpected or unpopular, so I don’t have much to say that hasn’t already been said about this movie. It’s well-acted, the action is coherent and engaging, and the story is just believable enough while also balancing its sci-fi/adventure backdrop well enough to pull it off. To break the chronological approach that I have stuck to thus far, I want to tackle the two “Deadpool” films together. This is because I think they are essentially the same film. In terms of their tone and overall goal, 2016’s “Deadpool” and 2018’s “Deadpool 2” satirizes comic book movie tropes, the Hollywood studio process of moviemaking, the fanaticism surrounding comic book movies of the last decade, the jumbled continuity of the “X-Men” film franchise, and Ryan Reynolds’ filmography. And both films do so with a lovely wit and fun-loving nature about them. They are both worth a watch, and I think they deserve two of the top spots on my ranking of these movies. But (and this may be unpopular) I think they lack much re-watch value. Still, if you like in-your-face, over-the-top action-comedies, these are certainly worth your time. 2016 was a big year for 20th Century Fox as it released two “X-Men” films. Months after the highly successful and critically lauded “Deadpool,” the studio served up “X-Men: Apocalypse” and received a far less forgiving reception from the fanbase (myself included). I found this movie to be overall boring and unoriginal with a few fun moments here and there. The main case does a serviceable job, but I think “Apocalypse” will be remembered as a sign of the beginning of the end for the main “X-Men” series. I’ll get to “Logan” in a minute. But first, to cap off the prequel/reboot/“pre-sequel” movies that began with “First Class.” In 2019, “Dark Phoenix” came and went with virtually no attention from the press or the public. I waited to see it simply because I lacked the motivation to drive to the theater and spend my dollars on what I was certain would be a forgettable comic book movie. Months later, I rented the disc and blocked out an afternoon for it. And, to nobody’s surprise, my hunch was confirmed. It’s hard for me to decide if I liked “Apocalypse” or “Dark Phoenix” more. The former is a sad excuse for a modern superhero film, while the latter might be the most “so-so” movie I have ever seen. Ultimately, I have decided which one I rank higher but I could care less about both of these films. “Logan” is by far and away the best of the “X-Men” films, and I have yet to find anyone who disputes this. The story, writing, acting, direction, cinematography, action sequences, emotional stakes, and thematic depth of the storytelling all culminate in one of (if not the) best comic book movies ever made. I could write an entire blog on just this movie (perhaps I will in the future 😊). But, for now, I leave it at this screed of unabashed praise for Hugh Jackman’s final outing as Wolverine. Finally, we come to the end with “The New Mutants.” The last “X-Men” film by 20th Century Fox released in theaters this weekend, and given my months-long self-imposed quarantine due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic I was very eager to go to the theaters and see a new movie. “The New Mutants” has a storied history of delay after delay, and rumors upon rumors of reshoots. But, to the shock of many, it is the first major theatrical release of 2020 since the onset of the pandemic. Does it live up to that name? Nah, but it’s still a pretty enjoyable movie. With elements of horror, dark comedy, action, and suspense littered throughout, Josh Boone’s teen superhero movie was a perfectly decent way to wrap up this thirteen-film odyssey that is “X-Men.” So, with all that said I have my final ranking of the 20th Century Fox “X-Men” movies:
At the end of the day, how will I remember this franchise? The early entries were the precursors to the modern comic book movies that I love so much, and as a whole these movies had noble intentions but ultimately lack any lasting impact on me as a lover of cinema. How will you remember this franchise? What is your favorite “X-Men” film? Which opinions of mine do you think are utterly wrong and idiotic? Please comment below and share your thoughts on “X-Men.” Until next time, this has been... Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst NOTE: Originally published on 8/30/2020
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|