X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The first half an hour of Wolverine is very promising, with its spectacular action, very nice work with mountain locations, a likable Hugh Jackman, a believable relationship with a hot girl, cool catchphrases (“I’m Canadian”) and Liev Schreiber’s badass super villain (he’ll have to fight off offers to play more villains with a stick). Wolverine starts off as a tastefully balanced mix of dynamic action and pleasant family adventure with some romance thrown in for a good measure... That’s why it’s a pity that the talented Gavin Hood must gradually submit to more and more stupid screenplay twists, which want to astonish the action-craving audience at any cost. The movie thus ends up being something between Doom and X-Men: The Last Stand. I’m neither angry nor disappointed, as this was to be expected already from the trailer. I’m just saying it’s a pity. These characters and the hard-working actors playing them deserve something more clever. Something like Bryan Singer. (27/04/2009)

I have only seen the first two films of the X-Men series so far and they made a very solid impression on me. Wolverine takes a completely different direction and is not what I am looking for. It is more action-packed and visually impressive, but somehow immature in a teenage way. Even Liev Schreiber, one of my favorite actors, in the role of the main antagonist, did not improve my feelings. It is likely a generational matter because as a teenager I would give it at least one more star. Overall impression: 45%. (16/12/2009)

Adrenaline, excitement, fascinating action, and Jackman. Although Gavin Hood doesn't go through complicated storylines or delve into deep psychological exploration, it's beyond me how the creator of the desperately average Rendition could create such an amazing tribute to Logan. I simply rejoiced in everything, from the warrior Wolverine, to the lone Wolverine, to the expectedly raging Wolverine. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that this five-star review is probably highly personal. (24/05/2009)

Mourning for Singer went out of fashion long ago after Ratner's collapse, so why not enjoy mutants in the brisk action guise dictated by the increasingly popular 1980s model? Hood grasped the point of the subject matter on offer and presents us with a very decent piece of work that relies on the fact that if something moves, shoots, and explodes on the screen (preferably ten times in a span of a few seconds), it is impossible to be mad at it. However, Skip Woods is still writing like he’s had a lobotomy, so the dialogue is solidly rough, and the twists and turns were surely foreseen by the group of twelve-year-old snots sitting a few seats away. My fondness for Reynolds, the fact that Schreiber is a crackerjack and Jackman a major crackerjack, who simply is Wolverine, saved a lot of this film for me. I’ll probably forget it in a few days, but the fact that I wasn't bored for two hours, and the over-the-top finale on the cooling tower gives it just enough bonus points. Edit: Even after the second viewing it still has some energy, but the stupidity is also quite visible. I give it a better three stars. (30/04/2009)

Wolverine alone has earned two films over a period of four years purely about him. I didn’t understand why they did it, and overall I don’t even understand the meaning of the whole X-Men movies, where they return from the present to the past only to gradually jump into the future. I don’t understand the narrative line of all the movies, and I’ll probably never understand it. But what I admit is that this movie, unlike the Wolverine film itself, is perhaps even better. This is mainly due to the atmosphere of the 1970s, which seems absurd to me whenever I’m reminded of it. However, so be it. Three stars for not being completely bad at filmmaking. But everything else in this series is meaningless, and I think I will never find any meaning in other films from this series. (26/10/2015)