DJariya

I guess some people think they are a New York Times movie critic or an expert on Marvel Comics or something.

I agree I enjoyed it for what it was.

OutRun2

I haven't seen it yet but why was it so bad? Was Halle Berry in it?

Gunde

Horrible CGI. That's just not good enough in 2009.
The scene where he checks out his new steel claws in the mirror, they looked damn hand drawn. Like something out of Roger Rabbit. Pissed me off.

TGM

is there any rationale given as to why Sabretooth looks totally different than he did in X-Men 1?

Groucho

He was played by a different actor.

danicus007

No. There's not much rationale to this film at all really. I guess we have FOX to blame for screwing this one up.

musick

I'd be all for doing an end of ROTJ Anakin on Mane in X1 and replaceing him with Schreiber

karoomba

Was it ever explained anywhere why he called himself "Logan" in the film. In fact I don't recall if they ever mentioned his last name as 'Howlett' in the beginning... makes me wonder if the writers just changed his name to James Logan instead.

As for the film I gave it 3 stars. .but as a wolvie origin film it fails.. barely any feralness .. glosses over his war history.. no mention of Department H.. or explanation of why the US General is having a hidden base I'm assuming in the Canadian Rockies.

Thought the kid that played cyclops did an actual real good job.. and loved that he was receiving 'directions' during the escape from prof X.. that was a good surprise, unfortunately ruined by the lowly CGI, when you actually get to see him.

nickdawgy

I can agree there. They did look drawn. I was pissed as well. I damn near demanded my money back.

Then I calmed down when I realized it was a movie, and it was all fake anyway. I actually enjoyed myself after that.

Snowmaker

I'm going right after work today. Nobody try and stop me.

RichC2

You're making a huge mistake by seeing this instead of Gooby.

Doughboy

This was a bad movie, but I wasn't expecting much. I just tagged along with some friends who wanted to see it. I never thought X-Men III was as horrendous as others made it out to be(although it was a major missed opportunity as a followup to X2).

I think my issue with a Wolverine origin film from the very beginning was how superfluous the whole thing is. We know he can't remember any of it at the end, so it ends up feeling like one of those "it was all just a dream" endings. Plus with Stryker and Sabertooth showing up in X2 and X-Men respectively, we know they can't die.

Michael Corvin

I did like the film, but the things you mention do kinda detract from the overall 'feel' of the movie.

d2cheer

It was OK my son liked it more than I did. I would give it 2.5 out of 5.

Do they ever reference that Sabertooth and Wolverine are brothers in the first X-Men movie? I don't remember...

I too thought the effects were rather poor...

Supermallet

Forget being true to the source material. It wasn't true to good storytelling, period.

Deftones

Saw it. Liked it. Was it spectacular? Of course not. Was it faithful to the source material? Was I entertained? Yeah. Personally, I thought Liev Schriber stole the show as Victor Creed. The CGI was pretty bad in spots but nothing that was so overwhelmingly distracting. I think the worst part of the film was the dialogue. There were some really, really bad parts in there. "I'm so cold."

Blu Man

I liked it. Good action. Now to see how good Terminator and Transformers will be compared to this.

Daytripper

Yeah, I don't get all the "horrible CGI" comments. Aside for the claws which were, yeah, not great. The rest was fine. And miles better than "Hancock" and that last Mummy film.

Groucho

The CGI Patrick Stewart was not "fine". It looked like one of the wax figures in this thread.

Daytripper

Has it been confirmed that Patrick Stewart was 100% CGI? Or just had his face CGI'd to look younger?? If it's the former, then I'm sorry, that was fantastic. Just look at all the creepy "humans" in "The Polar Express" and "Beowulf".

Oh, and thanks for that link. And I thought Madam Tussauds was bad.

Supermallet

AFAIK, that was Patrick Stewart in the shot. His face was de-aged, as was done in the intro to X-Men 3. It's just that they went too far in this one.

Boba Fett

It was normal Patrick Stewart in the workprint. The biggest problem with the CGI is he was smiling way too wide.

toddly6666

I thought Wolverine was highly entertaining and it fits perfectly with the other three. The direction, especially the Canadian scenes, reminded me of Bryan Singer's X-Mens, so this film definitely feels like a prequel that one can comfortably watch before watching X-Men 1 and 2. (an example of bad prequels that don't blend smoothly with original films are the Star Wars prequels).

After watching the old X-Men flicks after this new one, things have changed. X-Men 2 is great, but not as great as it was pre-Dark Knight or Watchmen. I would grade the X-men movies as all slightly equally good as:

1. X-Men 2 / X-Men 1 / Wolverine
2. X-Men 3

First off, I want to address all the bitching about Deadpool:

1. DEADPOOL: I'm a huge comic book fan and Deadpool was not messed up one bit for the sake of "movie adaptation". I have no understanding what people are complaining about?
a. Costume: Who has a costume like in the comics? Not in these X-Men movies! It was basically just Magneto, Juggernaught and wrestler dude Sabertooth who had costumes that look like their comic counterparts. So for anyone who has seen the previous three X-Men movies, why would you even expect Deadpool to have a mask? Be happy that he had his red colored costume at the beginning at least.
b. Dying and Powers: Just look at wikipedia if you forgot what he's capable of:
-Regenerative healing factor
-Superhuman strength, stamina, agility, and reflexes
-Expert marksman, swordsman, and martial artist
-Teleportation
-Telepathic immunity
-"Cursed with life" (inability to die) by Thanos

The movie is a decent enough origin for Deadpool, especially in which he is not the focus. He was the coolest thing at the beginning of the movie and at the end of the movie. Why would he be the focus throughout the whole movie? It could have been Deadpool replacing Victor Creed, but that would change the whole story. The heart of the story is between Logan and Victor Creed. There's no room for Deadpool. It's a Wolverine movie with tons of mutants. Why would Deadpool be the focus? And for "movie adaptation", it doesn't matter that his mouth was sewn shut (he'll rip it open eventually) or if he can shoot laser beams out of his eyes or has blades that shoot out of his arms. He is known as having tons of powers. For movie adaptation reasons, it's not a big deal or insulting the character...I thought the Wolverine movie was a perfect set-up for a Deadpool solo film if they ever do one.

But other than that, I was happy with Deadpool and the rest of the characters. Liev Shrieber was an awesome Sabertooth, definitely better character than his comic book or cartoon versions. Gambit was cool. Emma Frost had big breasts which was good. The Blob was awesome - although the make-up was a bit wierd. I wasn't bugged by the poor CGI because CGI is all equally the same to me. I prefer to have none that have it. Is the CGI in those Star Wars prequels considered good CGI? To me the CGI in those films looked bad, so it doesn't bug me, because the CGI in Wolverine wasn't the focus. The focus was on the characters, story, and action.

The oiling up of Hugh Jackman was pretty funny and overboard. Someone needs to fire the make-up artists. There is no need to oil him up to make Hugh Jackman look good or "extra good." The make-up artists did the same in Australia.

The CGI Patrick Stewart was a bit wierd, but didn't bug me.

Overall, Wolverine was better than I expected.

Bring on the Magneto Origins movie!

Artman

I was wondering about that....he looked fine to me there..lol! Haven't seen the final version...

Supermallet

I really wish the Magneto film would be a hardcore Holocaust drama and not an action movie at all.