The history of comic book adaptations to the big screen is an interesting one. It's rather surprising to me that the real potential of adapting costumed superheroes to the big screen has only really become a lucrative business within the past fifteen years or so. While the 2008 "Iron Man" film was what really kicked off Marvel's flagship franchise, I think that that film is hard to contextualize without the help of two other pretty sizeable comic book series from the 2000s: Sam Raimi's hugely successful "Spider-Man" trilogy, and the "X-Men" franchise. After the success of the 1989 Tim Burton "Batman" adaptation, there was a large influx of sub-par superhero movies from the 1990s. A lot of them either tried to alter the source material to make it seem more "mature" and "dark", or they went over-the-top in terms of campy-ness and cheesiness, never really striking the balance that both the original comics and the superhero movies of today were able to find. And then came the 2000 "X-Men" film.
"X-Men" had become a very popular group of superheroes in the 1990s, getting their own cartoon series and also breaking comics sales records. Marvel had previously dipped its toes in the waters of film with their low-budget adaptations of "Captain America" and the "Fantastic Four" that decade, but "X-Men" was Marvel's first shot at trying to make something as big as DC was doing with their "Superman" and "Batman" films. (And yes, I know that "Blade" exists, but that was more of an underground cult thing, and the character is more of an anti-hero with roots in the horror genre. "X-Men" was their first shot at mainstream blockbuster superhero cinema).
"X-Men" is a movie about a sub-race of humans known as mutants. These people are born with supernatural abilities that some consider dangerous. Mutants are persecuted against and face discrimination, and most decide to live underground and hide their identities. Magneto (Ian McKellan) is a mutant with the ability to control magnetic fields and bend metal with his mind. He believes that mutants are the superior race to normal humans and will stop at nothing to achieve domination. Charles Xavier, A.K.A Professor X (Patrick Stewart), has the ability to read peoples minds and communicate telepathically, and he believes that humans and mutants can live together harmoniously. It's basically an allegory for Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, with both men holding different views on integration and the persecution of minorities. One of them holds a more radical view that the populations cannot live together, while the other has a more optimistic belief. I wish that this movie would have spent more time exploring the dynamic between these two characters, as they are definitely the most interesting part of the movie, but instead we spend a lot more time with Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). Jackman does a great job, channeling Clint Eastwood in his performance of the amnesiac Canadian mutant with retractable metal claws and regenerative healing, but the movie spends way too much time dealing with his relationship with the emotionally confused teenager Rogue (Anna Paquin). She's an interesting character as well, with the ability to "borrow" fellow mutants powers at the cost of draining their energy, which is portrayed more as a curse than anything. I just personally think that the focus of the film's story should have been more on the "chess game" between the two old men. Wolverine and Rogue act more as pawns in their game, and I think that the focus shouldn't really have been on them. With such a large cast of characters, it's hard for other fan favorites to get their time in the spotlight as well. This is a problem that I personally have with the modern "Avengers" movies as well, but it's more apparent here because the movie is much shorter than any of those at just 104 minutes, and much of that run time is spent focused on Wolverine.
In light of the other superhero behemoths that have been released in the two decades following the original "X-Men" film, it's hard for me to give this movie a glowing recommendation. It's visual effects have aged, the humor is either non-existent or just out of place, and it lacks the fun and adventure that we've seen since. It's worth a watch if you're an "X-Men" fan, and it's definitely not awful by any means. Heck, it's better than a lot of the early MCU films. Check this one out when you're waiting for that next superhero adaptation to hit the big screen.
"X-Men" had become a very popular group of superheroes in the 1990s, getting their own cartoon series and also breaking comics sales records. Marvel had previously dipped its toes in the waters of film with their low-budget adaptations of "Captain America" and the "Fantastic Four" that decade, but "X-Men" was Marvel's first shot at trying to make something as big as DC was doing with their "Superman" and "Batman" films. (And yes, I know that "Blade" exists, but that was more of an underground cult thing, and the character is more of an anti-hero with roots in the horror genre. "X-Men" was their first shot at mainstream blockbuster superhero cinema).
"X-Men" is a movie about a sub-race of humans known as mutants. These people are born with supernatural abilities that some consider dangerous. Mutants are persecuted against and face discrimination, and most decide to live underground and hide their identities. Magneto (Ian McKellan) is a mutant with the ability to control magnetic fields and bend metal with his mind. He believes that mutants are the superior race to normal humans and will stop at nothing to achieve domination. Charles Xavier, A.K.A Professor X (Patrick Stewart), has the ability to read peoples minds and communicate telepathically, and he believes that humans and mutants can live together harmoniously. It's basically an allegory for Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, with both men holding different views on integration and the persecution of minorities. One of them holds a more radical view that the populations cannot live together, while the other has a more optimistic belief. I wish that this movie would have spent more time exploring the dynamic between these two characters, as they are definitely the most interesting part of the movie, but instead we spend a lot more time with Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). Jackman does a great job, channeling Clint Eastwood in his performance of the amnesiac Canadian mutant with retractable metal claws and regenerative healing, but the movie spends way too much time dealing with his relationship with the emotionally confused teenager Rogue (Anna Paquin). She's an interesting character as well, with the ability to "borrow" fellow mutants powers at the cost of draining their energy, which is portrayed more as a curse than anything. I just personally think that the focus of the film's story should have been more on the "chess game" between the two old men. Wolverine and Rogue act more as pawns in their game, and I think that the focus shouldn't really have been on them. With such a large cast of characters, it's hard for other fan favorites to get their time in the spotlight as well. This is a problem that I personally have with the modern "Avengers" movies as well, but it's more apparent here because the movie is much shorter than any of those at just 104 minutes, and much of that run time is spent focused on Wolverine.
In light of the other superhero behemoths that have been released in the two decades following the original "X-Men" film, it's hard for me to give this movie a glowing recommendation. It's visual effects have aged, the humor is either non-existent or just out of place, and it lacks the fun and adventure that we've seen since. It's worth a watch if you're an "X-Men" fan, and it's definitely not awful by any means. Heck, it's better than a lot of the early MCU films. Check this one out when you're waiting for that next superhero adaptation to hit the big screen.