X-Men (2000)
Directed by Bryan Singer
Two mutants, Rogue and Wolverine, come to a private academy for their kind whose resident superhero team, the X-Men, must oppose a terrorist organization with similar powers.
39 connections found
View:
39 connections, in both directions
What critics compared X-Men to
The whole thing sounded too much like a copyright-skirting nod to Professor Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters, of “X-Men” fame.
Other viewers will see echoes of X-Men , Groundhog Day , Ladyhawke , Toy Story and even the 1980s Biggles movie, as the story progresses.
The movie's a testament to outsiders, as most of Burton's films are, though the source material (the novel) feels to me like inorganic matter, made up of too many easily identifiable fantasy reference points, from Harry Potter to the mutants of "X-Men."
Guided by Ransom Riggs’ YA novel on which the film is based, Burton riffs on X-Men and (to a lesser extent) Harry Potter, and while the combination may look winning on paper, the results are tragically clichéd and will likely leave fans of both Burton and the novel frustrated and confused.
It just can’t stop coming up with limitlessly peculiar stuff, much of which has a familiar odor: It’s “X-Men” meets “Alice in Wonderland” meets “Groundhog Day,” plus there’s a kind of Addams Family versus the Holocaust vibe — “They’re creepy, they’re spikey, they’re totally Third Reich-y.”
This is pretty much Burton doing an X-Men movie, with a plucky yesteryear vibe and evil Samuel L. Jackson thrown in for extra fun.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos, despite having next to no dialogue, is seductively threatening and leaves a memorable impression as Mystique, arguably the nastiest villainess since Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman in 1992's "Batman Returns."
Batman and Batman Returns succeeded in being dark, but weren't quite worthy of a Knight.
In what might be viewed as an attempt to show geek cred, it gamely references numerous touchstones: Harry Potter (there's a game of quidditch), X-Men, Game of Thrones, Star Wars, and so forth.
At least then we might have escaped a plethora of racial, social and ethnic stereotypes, not to mention pop culture references to Harry Potter, “X-Men” (which these clowns say they never heard of) and Jennifer Beals’ legwarmers that are about as current as the Eisenhower administration.
The age-versus-youth theme, however, is as subtle as a meat cleaver: Are we supposed to buy that Billy and Nick are unfamiliar with “X-Men” and “Harry Potter,” or that Billy can’t remember that the term is “online,” not “on the line”?
There are certainly myriad issues however, from the ceaseless, not particularly funny pop cultural references (“Star Wars,” “Big Bang Theory,” “Harry Potter,” “X-Men”), to the down-to-the-second predictable structure, to the excruciating use of pop music.
Another distracting contradiction finds Vaughn and Wilson completely unaware of contemporary popular culture, since multiple scenes depend on them not knowing that “Professor Charles Xavier” is a fictional X-Men character.
There’s also a loving tribute to the Fox-era with an end-credits montage that celebrates their 20 year slate from X-Men (2000) through to The New Mutants (2020).
Deadpool & Wolverine is the third installment of the Deadpool series and stars Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman, who reprises his role from the X-Men franchise.
Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is dead, as told in Hugh Jackman's last X-Men film, Logan.
Marvel Studios' Deadpool & Wolverine is a movie close to 25 years in the making, ever since Hugh Jackman first donned the black leather suit and adamantium claws to play Wolverine in 2000's X-Men. While Ryan Reynolds was a more recent addition to 20th Century Fox's X-Men franchise, he became so synonymous with the Deadpool character that I'm certain I'm not alone in believing he would be nearly impossible to recast.
Reynolds has been playing Deadpool since 2009's X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so this isn't the first time that him and Hugh Jackman (Faraway Downs) are teaming up as their famous characters — but, again, it is the first time in the MCU.
A similar change happened to the most recognizable member of the X-Men, Wolverine. Back in 2000 when the original X-Men film was released, Hugh Jackman was essentially a nobody. Since then he’s become a superstar of the highest caliber.
That they’re not outfitted in X-Me n-style costumes almost feels like a missed opportunity…
…the positioning of the in-universe Harbor Neuroscience institute as some sort of school for neurodivergent savants has more in common with X‑Men than reality.
…a school of autistic kids exposing government secrets like Professor X’s “gifted youngsters” in the X-Men movies…
…would start to make sense only if the filmmakers are trying to set up Wolff and his shadow network of savants as their own “X-Men” cohort…
…a team of high-functioning superhackers that resemble nothing so much as the X-Men to Affleck’s Professor X.
I think the film intends these youngsters to be a semirealistic gang of X-Men…
The wizarding community has been forced underground due to intolerance that channels "X-Men."
It’s the same logical flaw that operates in both the “Avengers” and “X-Men” franchises, and Rowling doesn’t have much to add to the “Potter” franchise … yet.
In the wake of several violent attacks on New York, causing all manner of social, political and architectural upheaval, the movie makes the compelling argument that the willful repression of one’s supernatural abilities can lead only to destruction and chaos — a point that harks back to Bryan Singer ’s “X-Men” movies, with their resonant subtext equating mutant powers with homosexuality.
That hatred toward those who possess unique powers (something highlighted in the film's opening that features related newspaper headlines that, as in the "Potter" films, come along with animated panels) and the need for those to lead secret lives also gives the flick something of an "X-Men" vibe, particularly when Farrell's character shows displeasure toward regular folk getting more regard than wizards.
As with mutants in the X-Men movies , there’s a Civil Rights-era difference of opinion between leaders in the minority community with peaceful visions, like Professor X and Martin Luther King Jr., and those with more violent visions, like Magneto and Malcolm X.
There are scenes, typically the most destructive ones, that could be plopped into any old "X-Men" movie.
Advertisement
Fast, ferocious and inevitably a bit too pleased with its own cleverness, this Fox-produced offshoot of the “X-Men” series nevertheless can’t help but feel like a nasty, nose-thumbing tonic next to the shinier delegations of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as represented by Disney’s “Avengers” franchise (and its various subfranchises) and Sony’s not-so-amazing “Spider-Man” movies.
He’s played the part before, in the very first of the X-Men solo spinoffs, 2009’s all-around-regrettable X-Men Origins: Wolverine .
It continues in the opening credits, which list the stars as "God's Perfect Talent," "A Hot Chick" and whatnot (I won't give away all the jokes), and picks up with Deadpool's consistent references to Marvel Comics' "X-Men" movie franchise ( a stiff, staid thing at this point ), to which he belongs, because he cavorts with two of its characters, but at the same time doesn't belong, because he references Professor X and Wolverine by the actors who play them in the movies we've seen in our reality.
Its anarchic luster is purely cosmetic, an edgier “X-Men” film that struggles to conceal its dud of a story that has nothing new to offer to anyone but middle schoolers.
Still, there's Reynolds, and a R-rated comic-book script which delights in its own filthy dialogue and bloody action without tipping over into unintentionally ridiculous sex scenes (like "X-Men") or way-too-gruesome gore (like the "Sin City" movies).
Compare to the X-Men movies, which are great fun, but also have an agenda--setting up Magneto and Professor Xavier as Malcolm X/Martin Luther King counterparts in the struggle for leading an oppressed race, or the anti-Patriot Act themes of the second film.
Hellboy's partner and housemate Abe Sapien, an amphibious genius played by Doug Jones and voiced by David Hyde Pierce, comments, "All us freaks have is each other," reminding us of the kinship Hellboy shares with X-Men .
Indeed, “Hellboy” is basically an occult version of “X-Men,” with John Hurt taking the Patrick Stewart role of a fatherly professor with an English accent.
Good superhero movies—from the first Batman (1989) to X-Men (2000)—are like superhero comics, in that they come from a distinct emotional place: that feeling of adolescent outsiderness that drives kids to live through … superhero comics.
Particularly in its treatment of the relationship between Hellboy and Liz, there are times when "Hellboy" resembles Bryan Singer's "X-Men," one of the few other recent comic-book adaptations that understood that comics aren't just about action, but also about mood and language and lyricism.
But on the heels of such successful comic-book adaptations as X-Men and Spider-Man, Johnson's film makes Daredevil look like the second-rate hero he never really was.
It’s a little darker, a little bloodier, and a little more adult than its Marvel Comics-spawned counterparts "Spider-Man" and "X-Men."
"Daredevil" is one of the darker Marvel comics, incorporating a grittier detective persona to the title character, and this may be why it's more of a cult comic than a huge fan-based comic like " Spider-Man " and the " X-Men " books.
No, but it has much more going for it than the last “X-Men” sequel, in the end.
But it's a far cry from "Batman Begins," the "Spider-Man" movies and Bryan Singer's "X-Men" films, which have set the bar pretty high for everything that's followed.
But Jonathan instructs him to resist the urge, and this advice is largely what leads the adult Clark (now played by Henry Cavill) to wander the backroads with no real purpose, a bearded laborer who takes any job he can find (these scenes, combined with Clark's shaggy whiskers, bring to mind Hugh Jackman's wanderings in X-Men and X-Men Origins: Wolverine).
The “X-Men” and the “Dark Knight” sagas have trod this territory, but it’s new for the cinematic “Supermans,” at least to this degree.
Not me, certainly, as the film meanders along, playing less like a prequel for the JLA than a greatest-hits medley of every superhero movie ever made - a little "Dark Knight Rises" here, a bit of "Batman Begins" there, all spiced up with some "X-Men" topicality.
Had Oscar Isaac not been bogged down with X-Men: Apocalypse or Star Wars: The Force Awakens, he might have proven the better Lex.
In the hands of another director—the Christopher Nolan of the Dark Knight movies or the Bryan Singer of the X-Men films come immediately to mind—this and other moral quandaries might have been drawn out in intriguing ways.
Much like Quicksilver in the "X-Men" movies he zips along at high speed (thus making everyone else seem frozen in a freeze frame collage), resulting in some similarly fun scenes.
This Man of Steel trilogy can now stand as a strong, legitimate take on its characters as much – and as differently – as Richard Donner’s Superman , Bryan Singer’s X-Men , or Burton, Schumacher, and Nolan’s various Batman s.
Advertisement
Other superhero movies have dabbled in big ideas—the Dark Knight trilogy most notably, and the X-Men franchise to a lesser degree.
Logan and The Wolverine both exist in the same world as the other X-Men films, but both have a distinct style that feels more like James Mangold films (the man adores the iconography of Westerns) than anything Bryan Singer did with his X-films.
In aesthetic look and spirit, it shares more in common with The Lion King than, say, X-Men .
Beyond Wesley Snipes in the "Blade" movies, Halle Berry in the "X-Men" ones and Samuel L. Jackson in various "Avengers" related flicks, you'd probably be hard-pressed to name another three.
You might think The Avengers , renamed Avengers Assemble for Britons, in a slight to their intellect, is a new staging post in a cycle than began a thousand years ago with Bryan Singer’s X-Men (2000).
Compare this to Bryan Singer’s slickly ponderous first X-Men movie, in which there’s a whole lot of scene setting and not much else.
Most will agree that both the “X-Men” and “Spider-Man” series were for the most part good, but there were bizarre diversions, like “Daredevil,” “Ghost Rider” and the odious and nonsensical “Hulk” by Ang Lee.
Then there is a second level that includes "Superman II," the Tim Burton "Batman" films, the last "X-Men" epic and the first "Iron Man"--all solid films that nevertheless lack that final spark that separates the good from the great.