linsenbardt.net

One of the first movies to start the “super hero movie craze,” way back in 2000, was “X-Men” (followed shortly thereafter by “Spider-Man” in 2002, which really got it going). Arguably, the breakout star of “X-Men” was Hugh Jackman, who played the iconic role of Wolverine…and pretty damned well, by all accounts.

Well, after two more X-Men movies, they’d either killed off the most famous X-Men, or pissed off the stars enough that they weren’t going to return for another one…leaving the franchise-runners an interesting option: prequels. Thus begins a new series of movies under the “X-men Origins” heading, the first of which is “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” (“X-Men Origins: Magneto” is currently in early production). Hugh Jackman was happy to reprise the role, and since the comic book hero, Wolverine, doesn’t really “age” in a traditional way, it wasn’t too big a stretch to have him act in a prequel.

The movie itself is loosely based on the “Weapon X” mini-series of Marvel Comics that essentially sought to explain how Wolverine was given his adamantium skeleton and claws (as they aren’t really a part of his mutant powers – they were grafted onto him in a particularly painful procedure referred to in “X2: X-Men United.” By “loosely,” I mean that William Stryker (the main bad guy) was in the comics, but never as the leader of the Weapon X program. The mutants that appear in the movie (including Deadpool and Agent Zero) were indeed involved in Weapon X, but not to the same extent as in the comic. Oh yeah, and Gambit…not so much in those series…

All that plot shenanigans aside, how was the movie? Well…it was alright…

The story mostly made sense…the effects were generally cool…and the fight scenes were pretty sweet… Hugh Jackman was mostly born to play Wolverine, and I can’t imagine anyone else in the role. The other characters, on the other hand, just weren’t in the movie all that much. Like, Ryan Reynolds (Deadpool) was only in the movie for, like, 10 minutes. The actual history of Wolverine and his brother, Victor, was given during the credits rather than in a series of scenes. They compressed a relatively complex story into a two-hour time frame that probably should have been split into two movies, as they had to devote a lot of the time that could have been given to plot into fight scenes. Essentially, I just think the movie could have been a lot better (and garner higher reviews) if they developed the characters over a longer period of time. They just tried to do too much with a limited time-frame.

And while the effects were generally excellent, they really need to consider using actual claws on the close-up shots, ’cause those CGI claws only look good at a distance.

Anyway, even with all those qualms, I’m glad I saw it. It was a fun movie and I wasn’t expecting anything Oscar-worthy. If you liked the previous movies, you’ll probably like this (and I think this was better than “X-Men: The Last Stand,” if that means anything to you). I just hope they focus more on the story for the “Magneto” movie, as his story especially would be done a disservice to focus more on action sequences, rather than his life and friendship with Charles Xavier.

Don’t get me wrong…”The Fast and The Furious” was not what one would call a “good movie,” but there was something kinda stupid and fun about it. The movie largely propelled Vin Diesel to “action star” status overnight, and also kicked off the career of Michelle Rodriguez and Jordana Brewster…and Paul Walker, if you really call “Timeline” and “Joy Ride” a “career”…

Anyway, “The Fast and The Furious” was actually remake of a 1955 movie of the same name, but they really had very little in common with each other. It was relatively well-received by the fans (yet panned by the critics), and made enough money to warrant a string of sequels, including “2 Fast 2 Furious,” headlined by the aforementioned Paul Walker (and sans Diesel, Rodriguez and Brewster) and “The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift (which only had a cameo by Diesel, and otherwise no-name actors).” “2 Fast…” was a terrible, terrible movie. “Tokyo Drift” I never saw, but from what I hear, wasn’t really a bad movie…just didn’t do well in theaters…at all… However, it exploded in DVD sales and warranted another flick.

Enter the most recent iteration, “Fast & Furious,” which brings back the original crew in an attempt to reboot the franchise. In most respect, it actually pulls it off rather well, providing even more car stunts and action than the first movie, and otherwise decent special effects (there are quite a few more digital effects this time around, though). Paul Walker is still amongst the worst actors in Hollywood, but at least this time, he isn’t headlining the movie and he has Vin Diesel to bring it up a notch (relatively speaking, of course).

Briefly, the story itself deals with Diesel’s character, Dom Toretto, seeking revenge against a Mexican drug czar…who Paul Walker (FBI Agent Brian O’Conner) is also after, for other reasons (read: heroin trafficking). You can probably fill in the blanks from there…not a terribly complicated story…

The cars this time around weren’t all that impressive to me, as compared with some of the other flicks. There were actually very few new tuner cars to be seen…most of them were late-90s or early-2000s models, with the exception of the new Subaru Impreza WRX STi. Otherwise, the vast majority of cars in the movie are “American Muscle,” including a new Mustang, a Gran Torino, a Chevelle SS and, of course, Dom’s Charger. I would have liked to see a few newer cars in the movie, but I’m sure I’ll live…

So yeah, I liked it. It’s a good popcorn flick to kick of a summer of excellent movies. If you liked the first one (or, heck, all of them…somehow…), then you’ll love this. If, on the other hand, you can’t live with Vin Diesel being the best actor in the movie, you’ll probably want to pass. Thus far, it’s grossed $200 million worldwide, so believe you me…there’s another one coming…