Critics' Reviews: Discussion

[Chewy]

I'm not going to jump all over critics for liking the movie - I didn't think it was bad per se, more mediocre - but I'm genuinely shocked at the "concern for characters" bit. C'mon, no one but Wolverine or Sabretooth is given **** all to do. If giving 10 characters 5 minutes of screen time apiece is "concern for characters", then I'd hate to see what disrespecting characters would be

 

[Deaths Head II]

I usually just see the critic's arguments and see if they're something I find understandable or agreeable. Like I remember a review of Watchmen saying that the movie is bad because it's not fun or humorous. I'm not the biggest fanboy of the movie but I found that to be a stupid and ignorant complaint.

With this film, I agree mostly with the reviews that say the film falls apart by the third act. I just really, really, don't like the finale.

 

[night0205]

...the only time i see a movie in theaters...now-a-days, is I am looking forward to it...i haven't seen many movies lately....i miss them.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

It doesn't matter about screen time, it matters about what they do and how they are characterized in that screen time. Some one could be on screen for literally one minute, but if they say or do something that shows what their character is like then that is characterization.

All the members of Weapon X for example. We find out why they left Weapon X, we find that they have turned to vices to deal with the horrors or what they did. I picked up on all their personalities in the very first scene they were in. It really isn't that hard.

People saying there is no characterization for those characters are talking out of their arse.

 

[Chewy]

I have to disagree. We learn nothing about Wilson. We learn nothing about Bolt. We learn nothing about Agent Zero. The only members of the team who are given any sort of reason for leaving are Wraith and Blob, and this was all expressed in a single statement by Wraith before the pointless boxing scene. And we never learn why any of them are on the team.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Errr...it's safe to say Bradley leaves for the same reason as Wraith and Blob.

I'll tell you what I found from their characters.

Spoiler

Bradley-Quiet guy, doesn't seem like he is a killer, he doesn't seem like he likes it on Weapon X. In the end he resorts to being a circus entertainer and has a nice little scene where he seems that he feels wrong for hiding his talents.

Agent Zero-Thinks he is a bit of a bad man, arrogant. Him and Logan don't like each other

Wade-He is a bad man. Loves his swords, is the only one apart from Logan who isn't afraid of Creed.

Wraith-Seems a nice bloke, him and Logan get along.

Blob-Funny bastard. He likes gymnasts.

There we go, I picked up all those things easily. That is enough characterization for their roles. I don't give a **** about their past lives and all that crap, this film is about Wolverine.

And who cares if the boxing scene was pointless? It was a comedic relief scene, what's the problem? Not every comic book film from TDK onwards has to be sooo meticulous that every single line or scene has to mean something. You know sometimes films are there just to entertain, not make you start scratching your head thinking about deep ****.

 

[The_Joker7895]

Errr...it's safe to say Bradley leaves for the same reason as Wraith and Blob.

I'll tell you what I found from their characters.

Spoiler

Bradley-Quiet guy, doesn't seem like he is a killer, he doesn't seem like he likes it on Weapon X. In the end he resorts to being a circus entertainer and has a nice little scene where he seems that he feels wrong for hiding his talents.

Agent Zero-Thinks he is a bit of a bad man, arrogant. Him and Logan don't like each other

Wade-He is a bad man. Loves his swords, is the only one apart from Logan who isn't afraid of Creed.

Wraith-Seems a nice bloke, him and Logan get along.

Blob-Funny bastard. He likes gymnasts.

There we go, I picked up all those things easily. That is enough characterization for their roles. I don't give a **** about their past lives and all that crap, this film is about Wolverine.

And who cares if the boxing scene was pointless? It was a comedic relief scene, what's the problem? Not every comic book film from TDK onwards has to be sooo meticulous that every single line or scene has to mean something. You know sometimes films are there just to entertain, not make you start scratching your head thinking about deep ****.

QFT. First of all, why are people whining about characters (Deadpool/Wade in particular) not getting enough screen time? This isn't X-Men Origins: Deadpool, this is X-Men Origins: Wolverine. If you wanted a Deadpool movie, you went looking in the wrong place. Yes, Deadpool is an awesome character and a fanboy fave, but why are people so up in arms about his lack of screentime? Since when was this movie about Deadpool anyways? Last I checked, the role was originally intended on being simply a cameo, so be happy with what you got.

Also, as a fan I can agree that different characters and properties need different treatment. Batman is something that lends itself to Shakespearean tragedy and such, whereas Wolverine is always something that is more suited for an action film. Batman is a very complex character and tragic, and lets face it, Wolverine, especially in the film version, isn't terribly complex, just haunted and tyrign to figure things out. A wolverine story lends itself more to badassery and action than heavy drama.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea, I think too many people have been spoilt by the likes of TDK. Batman films SHOULD be crime thrillers. Wolverine films SHOULD be action packed revenge films. Simple.

But to be fair, there should of at least been one scene with Wade explaining why he ended up a lab rat.

 

[CelticPredator]

If you're going to put a fan favorite character in a movie....dont throw him in there for 2 seconds and call it done. If this really WAS a Wolverine film...then it shoulda have been about WOLVERINE.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

If you're going to put a fan favorite character in a movie....dont throw him in there for 2 seconds and call it done. If this really WAS a Wolverine film...then it shoulda have been about WOLVERINE.

It was about Wolverine, it was about Wolverine and Creed. Wolverine is the main focus of the film, definitely.

I guess you are talking about Wade? Well to be honest, we are lucky he was in this at all. Reynolds was shooting 2 other movies whilst this was being made, Fox actually requested Wilson be wrote into the film so they could open possibilities for his own film. So even though Reynolds had scheduling conflicts they still managed to work his character into the film.

 

[Canemacar]

If Fox wasn't going to commit to giving the cameo characters decent screentime, they should have just left them out. It *is* a Wolverine movie after all; let him have the whole marketing burden.


You can't have your cake and eat it too,FOX.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

If Fox wasn't going to commit to giving the cameo characters decent screentime, they should have just left them out. It *is* a Wolverine movie after all; let him have the whole marketing burden.


You can't have your cake and eat it too,FOX.

Well to be fair, why do you think they chucked these cameo's in? To please the fans of said characters. But then you have people saying they shouldn't have used them. They can't win either way.

And let me make this clear. Lack of screen time doesn't necessarily mean lack of characterization. It seems people can't figure that out. And when it comes to the Weapon X unit, they had enough characterization for their roles, apart from Wade.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Well to be fair, why do you think they chucked these cameo's in? To please the fans of said characters. But then you have people saying they shouldn't have used them. They can't win either way.

And let me make this clear. Lack of screen time doesn't necessarily mean lack of characterization. It seems people can't figure that out. And when it comes to the Weapon X unit, they had enough characterization for their roles, apart from Wade.

Agreed with all of this.

It's the exact reason why studios shouldn't listen to fans.

Fans want Gambit. Fans want more Cyclops. Fans want Emma Frost, and Deadpool, etc...

We get them, and then fans complain, saying they shouldn't have been tossed in just to please the fans.

Then when it does happen, fans complain that the characters just take away from Wolverine, because it should have been about him, but then complain that the characters don't get enough development.

Which is it?

It's whatever gives those people a chance to complain, that's what it is.

In movies, secondary characters and below don't get the extensive development. Gambit, Emma Frost, Wraith, Blob, etc... got all the development they needed.

Wolverine has been developed for 3 movies already, we don't need to take time in the 4th movie to explain things we already know (we've already seen Wolverine being an animal, we know he IS an animal, which is why just implying it works. This is NOT the 1st movie that features Wolverine. It's not an introduction to the character).

We needed to -see- what happened to Wolverine before he lost his memory. We see that.

We needed to -develop- Creed because he's Logan's antagonist. Creed is developed.

We need to see Stryker's connection to Logan, see why Logan was associated with him, and see what Stryker meant by "As I recall it was you who volunteered for the experiment". We see that.

We need development for Silverfox, because she is the motivation for Logan throughout the movie. We actually get that, Lynn Collins was just a pretty bad actress.

Gambit doesn't need to be developed. He helps progress the plot, and has a reason for being there, but not being the focus of the movie, we don't need to know details. We just need to know how he fits into the plot, and we are given that.

Wraith, Agent Zero, Blob, Bradley - these guys don't need to be developed.

As Ace of Knaves stated, Deadpool needed development, because he plays a major part in the film's climax, and he is not developed. Deadpool is the ONE character in the movie that got screwed - both in terms of film development, and accuracy to the source.

Cyclops is in the movie to connect this movie to the main trilogy, which is a good thing. It makes this movie part of the overall story, making it an integral part of the X-Men story. Cyclops connects to the main trilogy very well.

 

[BMM]

Also, as a fan I can agree that different characters and properties need different treatment. Batman is something that lends itself to Shakespearean tragedy and such, whereas Wolverine is always something that is more suited for an action film. Batman is a very complex character and tragic, and lets face it, Wolverine, especially in the film version, isn't terribly complex, just haunted and tyrign to figure things out. A wolverine story lends itself more to badassery and action than heavy drama.

That sounds like something that could have just as easily been said about Batman five years ago before someone decided to take the property seriously and view Batman as more than just a guy who dresses up in a bat-suit and fights crime for a living. Wolverine is hardly my favorite X-Men character, but you’re selling the character short (way short) to better suit the idea that a low substance movie is the best Wolverine can hope for, which, in my opinion, isn’t true. What isn’t complex or tragic about a man who never grows old, potentially living countless lives, while he watches those he loves die of old age time and time again, all the while struggling with the animal within and his place in society as, what some would consider, a freak?

 

[EnDz0n3]

I'm definitely not one of those fans that jumps at the chance to point and yell "Plant!".

I really want to see what Roger Ebert will say about the film though. Whether you agree with his reviews or not he is a professional.

Most reviews I don't care either way, there have been movies I loved that most critics hated. I won't take Ebert's review to heart either way it turns out but I am curious to see what he has to say.

Ebert gave X-men a thumb down and considered X2 acceptable. He liked X3 tho IIRC.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah he was smitten by X3. But, he has liked some recently awful movies.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea Ebert isn't the be all and end all of critics. But he is articulate, non bias and does know what he is talking about...most of the time

 

[Ace of Knaves]

The Coventry Telegraph review

First review by David Bentley (me)

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/04/wolverine-review.html

A second review by a co-worker will appear in our print edition on Friday, I will paste it online then...

Nice review

 

[pyromaniac]

I have two links, one that is more of an amusing anecdote of what happened after the two films Star Trek and Wolverine finished at the same time, though it refers briefly to critics' thoughts of the latter, and the first local review in the second link. Some interesting tidbits. The second link notes the running time, 113 min, which took me by surprise, knowing of the other running time.

Clash of the Blockbusters

Is Wolverine worth the hype?

 

[night0205]

113?

 

[pyromaniac]

Yes, I know. Was 104min actually confirmed to be official?

 

[night0205]

107

 

[pyromaniac]

Well, regardless, the reviewer didn't enjoy the film or thought it fun, but 'okay' and had similar complaints as those who saw the workprint.

I'm thinking either a typo, or it's 113 with credits (though not possible) or new footage was added, but that it hadn't seem to greatly affect the film in a more positive way.

 

[X-Maniac]

Agreed with all of this.

It's the exact reason why studios shouldn't listen to fans.

Fans want Gambit. Fans want more Cyclops. Fans want Emma Frost, and Deadpool, etc...

We get them, and then fans complain, saying they shouldn't have been tossed in just to please the fans.

Then when it does happen, fans complain that the characters just take away from Wolverine, because it should have been about him, but then complain that the characters don't get enough development.

Which is it?

It's whatever gives those people a chance to complain, that's what it is.

In movies, secondary characters and below don't get the extensive development. Gambit, Emma Frost, Wraith, Blob, etc... got all the development they needed.

Wolverine has been developed for 3 movies already, we don't need to take time in the 4th movie to explain things we already know (we've already seen Wolverine being an animal, we know he IS an animal, which is why just implying it works. This is NOT the 1st movie that features Wolverine. It's not an introduction to the character).

We needed to -see- what happened to Wolverine before he lost his memory. We see that.

We needed to -develop- Creed because he's Logan's antagonist. Creed is developed.

We need to see Stryker's connection to Logan, see why Logan was associated with him, and see what Stryker meant by "As I recall it was you who volunteered for the experiment". We see that.

We need development for Silverfox, because she is the motivation for Logan throughout the movie. We actually get that, Lynn Collins was just a pretty bad actress.

Gambit doesn't need to be developed. He helps progress the plot, and has a reason for being there, but not being the focus of the movie, we don't need to know details. We just need to know how he fits into the plot, and we are given that.

Wraith, Agent Zero, Blob, Bradley - these guys don't need to be developed.

As Ace of Knaves stated, Deadpool needed development, because he plays a major part in the film's climax, and he is not developed. Deadpool is the ONE character in the movie that got screwed - both in terms of film development, and accuracy to the source.

Cyclops is in the movie to connect this movie to the main trilogy, which is a good thing. It makes this movie part of the overall story, making it an integral part of the X-Men story. Cyclops connects to the main trilogy very well.

I don't mind cameos and minor characters at all. In Wolverine, I did think a couple of them might have been omitted (Bolt, the Hudsons, maybe even Blob and Agent Zero).

What the film lacked was character moments. Scenes that weren't tied to the main plot that show people's personalities and motivations and souls - like the X2 scene with Bobby and his parents, or the Storm/N'Crawler convo on the X-jet.

This film could have done that more.

For instance, the part where Kayla tells Logan the Wolverine legend could have been developed into something with much more heart.

Imagine a scene where he is sat outside on the steps of the cabin, with a huge full moon over the trees and mountains. She comes outside and sits next to him, saying that 'Whatever it is Logan, you left it behind a long time ago.' He replies 'It's a part of me, i don't think i can ever leave it behind', then - with the big white moon in the sky - she tells him the story of the wolverine who came to earth and now must howl at the moon. And, before she tells him, she prefaces it with a hint at her native American origins, something like: "You know, there's this old story, a legend my mother's tribal ancestors used to tell on cold nights around the fire...."

It just gives the scene more substance, more relevance, more context. You know more about her, more about him.

I think i should be a script doctor or consultant on these X-Men films!

 

[night0205]

Well, regardless, the reviewer didn't enjoy the film or thought it fun, but 'okay' and had similar complaints as those who saw the workprint.

I'm thinking either a typo, or it's 113 with credits (though not possible) or new footage was added, but that it hadn't seem to greatly affect the film in a more positive way.

6-7/10 isn't bad. Obviously this film isn't anything brilliant, but everyone seems to be enjoying it, which is a good sign. It's an action film, not deep, not goin for an oscar, just some fun entertainment, and that's what it sounds like it is.