X-Men Origins: Wolverine (review)

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

Snikt!

Remember how when you were a kid and you were having a birthday party and you begged your mom not to buy the cheap generic potato chips but please please please get the Ruffles with Ridges because they really were better? Wolverine is like that. It’s Frosted Flakes on a Saturday morning even though you’re now grown up enough to worry about carbs. It’s a carton of Ben & Jerry’s Phish Food for dinner. It’s not good for you — not at all — and it’s maybe a little embarrassing to admit if you’re mature and politically aware and anticorporate and all that, but sometimes a big bowl of processed cheese dip not even made from real milk, never mind BHG-free organically herded heritage cows, is all you want.

Sometimes junk food is soul food, and sometimes junk movies are yummy and satisfying (and never mind the bellyache later).
It starts right away, the quality of dubious but delicious quality. Remember how we were all raving over the opening credits of Watchmen, how you could just watch them over and over again and never get tired of them? The opening credits of X-Men Origins: Wolverine are almost as tasty, as we see James Logan — woo-hoo! Wolverine! — and Victor Creed — woo-hoo! Sabretooth! — go from being boys together in the Northwest Territories of Canada in 1845 to rampaging across the battlefields of the 19th and 20th centuries. “Do you seek out war if you’re indestructible?” may be the question director Gavin Hood (Rendition, Tsotsi) and screenwriters David Benioff (The Kite Runner, Stay) and Skip Woods (Swordfish) are asking here. It’s all fun and games through the Civil War, WWI, and WWII — Wolverine and Sabretooth stormed the beach at Normandy! take that, Nazi bastards! — until Vietnam, when Victor finally goes crazy, actually starts enjoying the raping and killing, and Jimmy finally gets disgusted with it all.

And the field is set for a massive battle to the death between these two brothers.

Oh, didn’t I say? These two supermutant dudes… they’re brothers! I know some about the deep history of the X-Men comic-book universe, but not enough to say whether this is a revelation on the scale of “Luke, I am your father” or not. But it’s not a spoiler for the film. This is how we start out, not a question of surprise or suspense for the movie. (Maybe it was the way the history of these characters has been told over the years in book form, but not here.) And it’s so perfectly, wonderfully melodramatic! If you thought, perhaps, from those sincere and grim opening credits, that we were in for another solemn superhero flick that prisms our cultural crises through the monsters we make — did we all go crazy after Vietnam, just like Sabretooth? or did we finally come to our senses then, just like Wolverine? — well, this is not what you’re in store for.

Woo-hoo, it’s all just cheese dip galore. What the demented army guy Stryker (Danny Huston: How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, 30 Days of Night) does to James Logan to turn him into “Wolverine” — Logan’s original factory equipment was bone claws, not adamantium ones, of course. (And just what is adamantium, anyway? Answers are forthcoming… sort of.) Huston, always underappreciated as an actor, is a deadpan riot saying things to Logan like “You will suffer more pain than any other man could endure, but you will have your revenge” and “We’re gonna make you indestructible, but first we’ll have to destroy you.” Fun!

Melodrama! How Logan has nightmares about “the wars… all of them”! The woman (Lynn Collins: The Number 23, Bug) Logan loved and lost! How Wolverine got his name — so sad! His relationship with the Ma and Pa Kent of Canada!

This is some spectacular cinematic cheese, and I honestly do mean that in the best possible way. Because no matter how preposterous it all gets — even as it follows its own internal logic — Hugh Jackman (Australia, Happy Feet) as Logan is authentic and honest in his rage and pain and even his vulnerabilities. Liev Schreiber (Defiance, Love in the Time of Cholera) is more cartoonish as Sabretooh, but that’s just the nature of the character, not any fault of the actor (though you can practically see him thinking, Hey, I finally made it to a comic-book movie!) — and if all their fisticuffs involve long running starts to launch into each other… well, you try being the irresistible force meeting the immovable object sometime.

Credit to the flick, but in what should have been a completely predictable story — this is all backfill, after all — there are some shocking moments. Some of those moments are cheesy, too, but who’s looking for Citizen Kane here?

share and enjoy
             
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll measure. If you’re not a spammer or a troll, your comment will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately.
subscribe
notify of
85 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
WESKERVSJILL
WESKERVSJILL
Fri, May 01, 2009 12:12am

PLEASE TO ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE BROKE OR DON’T HAVE A RICH GIRLFRIEND, DDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOO NNNNNNNOOOOOTTTTT SEE THIS MOVIE, AVOID IT AT ALL COST. I SAW IT AND CAN’T GET THE STUFF I SAW OUT OF MY HEAD.(SPOILERS) WARNING: A. NO BERSERKER RAGE B. MAGIC BULLET TO THE HEAD C.SILVERFOX? D.BARAKA AS DEADPOOL FTW! NUFF SAID GETTING A HEADACHE AND THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT PISSED ME OFF I WAS REALLY WANTING TO SEE WOLVERINE BREAKING OUT OF THE WEAPON X FACILITY KICKING AND FIGHTING INSTEAD OF RUNNING OUT LIKE A LITTLE GIRL.
COME ON. MESSED UP WOLVERINE BIG TIME FOR ME. DOULBLE FRICK!!!!! :(

PaulW
PaulW
Fri, May 01, 2009 12:14am

Adamantium, actually. It’s a fictional hardest metal known to man in the Marvel universe, supposedly indestructible but only for heroes with life-saving coupons they cash in every summer blockbuster (villains get the cheap third-rate knockoff metal known as Quesadantium).

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 12:21am

Oh, PaulW, I know it’s fictional. :->

Fixed my spelling error. Thanks for pointing it out.

WESKERVSJILL: See that Caps Lock key? Hit it, once. And why do you assume that everyone who might want to see this movie is a hetero guy or a lesbian woman? Or do you just assume that gay guys and straight women just naturally won’t have rich girlfriends anyway?

JoshDM
JoshDM
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:01am

Adamantium can’t cut through the tough-to-duplicate Adamantium-Vibranium alloy used to create Captain America’s signature circular shield.

Riley
Riley
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:23am

I feel like you went into this one with different expectations and requirements than you generally do with movies. You keep apologizing for it and acting like its flaws don’t matter. Now, I have no problem with that. I have a shelf full of bad movies. I love to watch ridiculousness, it’s great. However, it doesn’t mesh with what you usually do, and it doesn’t seem fair. Why does this one get a pass? Because it’s X-Men? Because you’re into Hugh Jackman as Wolverine? I dunno, it just strikes me as odd. Maybe after you’ve seen it a second time and you take a week to think about it you could revisit it, see if you’re still riding this Wolverine ride you’re on.

And yes, I did see it. I thought Jackman was the only thing good in it. He gave it his best, but everything else felt lacking. I’m advising my friends to wait for DVD or premium cable. Maybe a Sunday matinee if it’s raining outside.

Arco
Arco
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:54am

I’m amazed at how this movie is getting slaughtered at Rottentomatoes. I understand this is the year after Iron Man and Dark Knight, and even Watchmen (on which the critics were kind of split) was very out-of-the-box so to critics this probably feels run-of-the-mill, but…

As you say MaryAnn, this is pure entertainment. Action, drama, action, Hugh Jackman being Wolverine…it doesn’t seem to claim to be more than that either in the trailers. What are people expecting? I think the trailers for Wolverine are more fitting than the ones for Watchmen, which sold that as ‘cool action’ more than anything else and left people surprised and disappointed.

I hope it does good business. The buzz has been so deliberately bad due to so many naysayers I’m rooting for it. (If only because the X-franchise kinda hangs in the balance here, and I would like to see more in spite of some disappointments)

Doa766
Doa766
Fri, May 01, 2009 3:06am

“The opening credits of X-Men Origins: Wolverine are almost as tasty”

really??

because I thought that the shot of Sabretooth charging on four legs through the Normandie was one of the most stupid things that I’ve ever seen in a movie

also why the hell are the fighting on the civil war and wearing american uniforms on the other wars if they’re canadians? Logan even goes back to live in Canada with his girlfriend so it’s not like he just spend a few years of his childhood there, he clearly think if it as home

anyway, the good looking guys seemed to have blinded you of how mediocre this movie is, it’s not boring but it’s on the same quality level as Daredevil or Fantastic Four and you shouldn’t recommend people to “see it”

Ben
Ben
Fri, May 01, 2009 3:10am

I agree with Riley in terms of being surprised you seem to have given this one a free pass from your usual standards (standards that I enjoy). I too like films that are bad and cheesey, but not films that are awful, and I have to put Wolverine in that category.

I mean for one thing the writing is just horrible. You quote some lines as cheese, and perhaps that would be acceptable if it was just a few lines, but not when the vast majority of the dialogue is melodramatic and over the top. I mean what about the “decent” line he gets at the dinner table… groan. Or the Wolverine story he is told by his love interest, sooooo baaddd…

The writing also fails at the characterisation aspect. It’s attempt to add character to the film tends to be disjointed and out of place. I mean Wolverine doesn’t start saying “Bub” until he fights the Blob (who mishears it). Why did he suddenly start saying Bub right now? (apart from the writers needing it as a clumsy bit of fan Perhaps if he had said it as a line throughout the film as turn of speech (which it is for Wolverine) it would be ok.. but no, its just suddenly used then.

All and all I am warning all my friends to avoid seeing this one. Although there is one thing that is good about this film, and that is the brilliant portrayal of Deadpool/Wade at the start of the film. This particular character stands out like a glowing gem amongst the pile of other flat personalities on screen. I would pay to see a whole movie based on him for sure, purely based on his sort appearance in the film.

Oh and then finally there are the plot holes – Spolier alert needed I guess (or delete these parts of the comments if you don’t allow spoilers in this section, sorry if that is the case)











– They send Zero after Wolverine, a crack shot assassin, and then only after he is dead go “oh yeah, this gun we have lying around, that would have been good to give him” (a gun which moves from “the only thing that can kill him” to “it will sure give him memory loss” over the course of the disjointed film)
– Gambit, someone who apparently hates the whole weapon X-program see’s Wolverine basically ready to kill Sabertooth, and what does he do? Come in and attack both characters… I mean sure Wolverine did knock him out a few minutes before.. but still are the film makers really saying he is that stupid?
– The guys running the weapon X intend to maker Wolverine a super solider and then erase his memory… personally I would have done that the other way around, erase and then supersolider.
– A final example would be the mutli-million dollar secret base on 3 Mile Island which seems to be guarded by 3 guys with machine guns and sabertooth. To look after around 20 mutants… ummm what? Similarly the weapon X facility seemed a little low on grunt power (oh and what about the hugely foreshadowing lingering shot of the waterfall as they are heading there – Look, Look, he is going to jump off this later, you will see… groan…)

Ben
Ben
Fri, May 01, 2009 3:12am

Oops… “clumsy bit of fan service” – haha.. always when complaining about bad writing ;)

Doa766
Doa766
Fri, May 01, 2009 3:19am

if you call the Victor from this movie Sabretooth, then you should refer to Weapon X by his proper name as well: Deadpool

JSW
JSW
Fri, May 01, 2009 8:31am

Isn’t Wolverine’s pre-amnesia last name supposed to be Howlett?

Chris
Chris
Fri, May 01, 2009 9:48am

Wow talk about taking a pretty decent comic series and just raping it. It feels more like Fox decided that they needed to cram every mutant in this movie to make up for the ones that were left out of the X-Men trilogy. Jackman is good actor, but like Australia, a good actor is only as good as the script given and the actors around him. Bullets apparently cause a self healer to lose memory. Oh and the last thing I want is a “cartoonish” Sabertooth. Sabertooth is villain that kills with no rhyme or reason. He does it because his instincts tell him too. If you want to make someone cartoonish, let it be Deadpool. Have your week Hugh and Mary Ann, cause next week the real summer blockbusters begin.

JoshDM
JoshDM
Fri, May 01, 2009 10:12am
SaintAndy
SaintAndy
Fri, May 01, 2009 10:33am

I’m actually disappointed in your review …because, from what I’ve read on this site (and I have read most of the reviews) you’ve always managed to maintain objectivity. I like Jackman too, and Schreiber, and I buy into the whole X-men/Wolverine universe/phenomenon, and I really wanted this film to be good ..but it’s not ..and it didn’t deserve more than a yellow stamp of approval.

Also, I am not the one to blindly follow the crowd, but the fact that’s down all the way to 37% on RottenTomatoes stands for something …

Mathias
Mathias
Fri, May 01, 2009 10:44am

Question from a Canadian, can Logan and his brother be considered Canadians if they grew up in the Northwest Territories 1845, when Canada wasn’t even a country until 1867?

Is this the type of idiocy i can expect from this film?

Mathias
Mathias
Fri, May 01, 2009 10:50am

Yeah, MaryAnn. We were all expecting you to rip this film up to shreds and a bit puzzled that you recommended we see it. You compare this film to fattening chips and dip, but they are very tasty snacks and we ignore their unhealthy-ness because of it.

Can massive plot holes, embarrassing cliches, poorly staged fight scenes, obvious and intrusive CGI and cringe-inducing dialogue be considered tasty?

nerdycellist
Fri, May 01, 2009 11:22am

Eh, it looks like fun to me. But then MaryAnn and I both liked Crank, which is nothing but a plot hole. I will be seeing this one at some point, no matter how much it diverges from the comic and how many plot holes it has.

Oh, and I know it’s not my blog, but can we not refer to “rape” if we’re not talking about, you know, rape? Unless this movie has forcibly, nonconsensually penetrated a sentient comic book I think the word might be inappropriate.

Alli
Alli
Fri, May 01, 2009 11:26am

JoshDM, Harry Knowles also recommended we see Twilight, so he really shouldn’t be blasting MaryAnn for supporting a cheesy movie. He’s just pissed that one of his favorite comic book franchises didn’t meet his standards.

As for MaryAnn’s review, she makes it pretty clear that this isn’t good cinema. So if you are a Wolverine fan and you were expecting Dark Knight, I think MaryAnn made it clear that you will hate this.

nerdycellist
Fri, May 01, 2009 11:35am

Man, the dudes who comment on some of these reviews always get really pissed off and butthurt when MaryAnn has an opinion that is in opposition to theirs.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 11:40am

Harry Knowles can say whatever he likes about me: I just wish he’d linked to my review. I can always use the traffic.

also why the hell are the fighting on the civil war and wearing american uniforms on the other wars if they’re canadians?

For the same reason that Americans volunteered to fight with the British before the U.S. entered WWI: for the fun, or the glory, or the honor, or whatever. Hell, more than one woman disguised herself as a boy so she could fight in the Civil War — and probably more than we even know of. Hence my supposition about the two mutants being drawn to war.

Can massive plot holes, embarrassing cliches, poorly staged fight scenes, obvious and intrusive CGI and cringe-inducing dialogue be considered tasty?

That’s not the tasty stuff. That’s the bad-for-you stuff that gives you the stomachache later.

I’m not particularly proud of enjoying this movie. But I DID enjoy it, in spite of its many flaws, and I don’t see any point in pretending that I didn’t enjoy it.

Tim1974
Tim1974
Fri, May 01, 2009 12:11pm

It has become quite disturbing and very disappointing that yet another film decides to feature male nudity only. Whether it is non sexual or not it has become quite a double standard of exposing only males.

Doa766
Doa766
Fri, May 01, 2009 12:27pm

“For the same reason that Americans volunteered to fight with the British before the U.S. entered WWI: for the fun, or the glory, or the honor, or whatever. Hell, more than one woman disguised herself as a boy so she could fight in the Civil War — and probably more than we even know of. Hence my supposition about the two mutants being drawn to war.”

an american woman disguised herself to fight on the civil war because the outcome had effects on her, therefore she wanted to help, this is not the case with canadians, also they’re clearly not the hero-volunteer type

regarding WW2, if we’re seeing the narmandie charge then it takes placed after America entered the conflict, Canada participated on WW2 and they could’ve fought with their own country and their own national uniforms

I know what you’re saying it’s posible but it’s highly unlikely, the montage of them fighting in american wars was meant for the audience to see them as part of US history (it’s also a rip-off from Cap. Dan’s flashback story on Forrest Gump) and it probably was the idea of one of the screenwriters and then another decided to set most of the movie in Canada and they never bother to make it cohesive

Pedro
Pedro
Fri, May 01, 2009 12:29pm

You know what the saddest part of this experience was? Before the movie, they showed five trailers. Among those, THREE were sequels (Terminator, Transformers and Night at The Museum), the other starred friggin’ JOHN CENA, and only ONE of them was remotely close to being a good movie…and oh yeah, that was foreign. It’s called Rudo Y Cursi, and it stars the ever-excellent Gael García Bernal.

Still want to bad-mouth Wolverine? Thought so.

Seriously, what does this tell about the state of the industry, when some of the most interesting movies I saw never even made it to theaters (I had to watch them on DVD or – gasp! – online) and instead we get tripe like this as our “upcoming attractions”?

MaryAnn? Care to comment?

Victor Plenty
Victor Plenty
Fri, May 01, 2009 12:41pm

So, let me see if I understand this. These characters are apparently over 150 years old, but they look like they’re maybe in their mid-twenties, tops. Nobody questions how realistic that might be.

But show some guys who were born in Canada fighting in American wars, wearing American uniforms, and that’s what brings out the hardcore sticklers for realism?

Really? Seriously?

Michael
Fri, May 01, 2009 12:54pm

So, let me see if I understand this. These characters are apparently over 150 years old, but they look like they’re maybe in their mid-twenties, tops. Nobody questions how realistic that might be.

But show some guys who were born in Canada fighting in American wars, wearing American uniforms, and that’s what brings out the hardcore sticklers for realism?

Really? Seriously?

It’s the same reason I can accept Hiro stopping time with his brain but wonder why DNA manipulation lets Sylar change his clothes. People will more easily fall victim to big lie than a small one.

(…Godwin’s Law now fulfilled.) ;)

Mathias
Mathias
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:03pm

So MaryAnn, all that stuff i mentioned is the stuff you didn’t like so what was it about this film that counter-balanced all that and made you give it the green light?

The awesome 3 minute credit sequence, Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber’s acting and some pulpy dialogue from Danny Huston?

Somehow i don’t think that’ll be enough.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:20pm

an american woman disguised herself to fight on the civil war because the outcome had effects on her,

Or maybe she just wanted adventure and escape, like some men do who join the army.

regarding WW2, if we’re seeing the narmandie charge then it takes placed after America entered the conflict, Canada participated on WW2 and they could’ve fought with their own country and their own national uniforms

I didn’t pay attention to the insignia on their uniforms in the WWI and WWII sequences — maybe they are fighting in the Canadian armies.

I know what you’re saying it’s posible but it’s highly unlikely, the montage of them fighting in american wars was meant for the audience to see them as part of US history

Possibly. Or it’s meant as I suggested: as an indication that these guys went to war not out of any noble intentions but because they’re freakin’ immortal, bored, and looking for excitement.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:23pm

Seriously, what does this tell about the state of the industry, when some of the most interesting movies I saw never even made it to theaters (I had to watch them on DVD or – gasp! – online) and instead we get tripe like this as our “upcoming attractions”?

MaryAnn? Care to comment?

Don’t I comment on this kind of thing all the time?

We know what the state of the movie industry is. And it’s not going to get any better — it’s going to get worse. See this piece I wrote this week for Film.com.

MaSch
MaSch
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:24pm

So, let me see if I understand this. These characters are apparently over 150 years old, but they look like they’re maybe in their mid-twenties, tops. Nobody questions how realistic that might be.

Assuming you’re talking about Wolverine and Sabertooth here: Mid-twenties, TOPS? I don’t know what the people in their mid-twenties or younger you hang out with do to make them look that not-young, and I don’t think I want to know, it must be scary.

Nerdycellist: While I agree with your point, now I would like to see a self-made video showing a comic-book movie nonconsensually penetrating a sentient comic book.

Just for the record, I also want to point out that it isn’t relevant to rape whether or not the perpetrator penetrated forcibly, consent is all that matters. And I want to point out that a woman can rape too without being the penetrating one, see “40 days and 40 nights” or “thursday”.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:27pm

So MaryAnn, all that stuff i mentioned is the stuff you didn’t like so what was it about this film that counter-balanced all that and made you give it the green light?

I recognized the flaws of the film, but the overall impact — for me, maybe not for other people — was one of popcorn enjoyment. It’s not the bits and pieces you picked out — “The awesome 3 minute credit sequence, Hugh Jackman and Liev Schreiber’s acting and some pulpy dialogue from Danny Huston?” — but how they all fit into a cohesive whole. Not narratively cohesive, perhaps. But Jackman holds it together… as an actor, not as beefcake. He believes in Wolverine, so I did, too.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:30pm

Assuming you’re talking about Wolverine and Sabertooth here: Mid-twenties, TOPS? I don’t know what the people in their mid-twenties or younger you hang out with do to make them look that not-young, and I don’t think I want to know, it must be scary.

Um, yeah. Jackman and Schreiber look every bit the early-40s that they are.

Just for the record, I also want to point out that it isn’t relevant to rape whether or not the perpetrator penetrated forcibly, consent is all that matters.

And no one can say that this movie constitutes rape of any kind, because Marvel consented to allow this movie to be made.

Arco
Arco
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:30pm

Okay I’m going to see it tomorrow, I have lowered my expectations, but I suspect my reactions will be like MaryAnn’s: fun cheesy entertainment.

Would I have preferred a masterpiece? Sure, but I’ll take the ‘fun ride’ if that’s what it will be.

I just get the impression many people decided to hate this movie’s guts way before they saw it. Some of the complaints I’ve seen smell like complete dung. (‘Why would they be in the US Civil War?’ because they were clearly looking up wars to fight in, establishing their nature as fighters and mayhem junkies I imagine.) It just sounds like digging for reasons to bitch at it. Very odd.

Oh and Harry Knowles decided not to review because he didn’t get invited to a screening and because ‘other people say it’s bad’. And then, never having seen it, tells readers not to go. MaryAnn, I know this is probably pointless to say but…please, please confirm you would never ever do something like that? I already can count the reviewers I truly value on one hand and while I was never a fan of AICN this was still rather shocking.

Drew Ryce
Drew Ryce
Fri, May 01, 2009 1:33pm

Roughly 50,000 Canadians fought in the US Civil War.
Here is a list of 29 that received the Medal of Honor: http://www.geocities.com/cancivwar/CanMOH.html

Just Wondering
Just Wondering
Fri, May 01, 2009 2:12pm

I’m not really a comic book geek, but my understanding from previous movies was that Wolverine (at least) didn’t appear to age because of his mutant healing ability. Did I get that wrong?

nerdycellist
Fri, May 01, 2009 2:17pm

Thanks, MaSCH – you’re totally right about what constitutes rape, which is a big part of what kept me out of those two movies you listed. Grody!

I don’t think MaryAnn’s ever condemned a movie because she didn’t get to review it/didn’t get a freebie ticket. She’s groused about studios that can’t get their crap together and invite her to screenings, only to suddenly disinvite her. And I believe she has made oblique references to “not screened for critics – you know what that means”, but I don’t know that she’s ever let the availability of a screening affect what she thinks about the movie once she’s seen and reviewed.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 2:17pm

It has become quite disturbing and very disappointing that yet another film decides to feature male nudity only. Whether it is non sexual or not it has become quite a double standard of exposing only males.

Hey, Tim1974, here’s a thought: Maybe if there were more movies actually *about* women doing interesting and exciting things, we could get more vulvas onscreen for you. I mean, much as I like this movie, it’s all *about* men: Logan, Victor, Stryker, etc. The only female character of even passing substance is Logan’s girlfriend, and she’s only there as a pawn in the men’s game.

Maybe if there were more movies about women, there could be more female nudity in contexts that actually make sense, instead of as merely bouncing tits as eye candy for men.

I mean, the *only* way to get a vulva onscreen for you in this movie would be in the *one* scene in which Logan and the chick are in bed together (and they’re just sleeping, not even having sex). There’s a *reason* for Logan to be naked in the bit where he’s naked that has nothing to do with sex. There is NO reason for ANY woman to be naked here, because women are hardly in the movie at all.

Just some food for thought for you, Tim1974. Maybe you need to start complaining that there aren’t enough women in movies, not enough vulvas. Unless that’s all women are to you.

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 2:25pm

my understanding from previous movies was that Wolverine (at least) didn’t appear to age because of his mutant healing ability. Did I get that wrong?

Clearly Logan and Victor *are* aging: they start out as children in this one. So maybe they’re just aging much more slowly (because of they’re regenerative abilities). Perhaps in 500 years they’ll look 75.

Oh and Harry Knowles decided not to review because he didn’t get invited to a screening and because ‘other people say it’s bad’. And then, never having seen it, tells readers not to go. MaryAnn, I know this is probably pointless to say but…please, please confirm you would never ever do something like that?

I’ve never done anything like that, and I won’t ever do anything like that. Sometimes I don’t get invited to press screenings, and sometimes movies aren’t screened at all. In those cases, sometimes I then buy a ticket and see a movie anyway. Sometimes I might express opinions about a movie I haven’t yet seen (as I often do when I feature trailers), but I can’t imagine how I could flat-out recommend that my readers NOT see a film based on my own suppositions about what I think a movie MIGHT be based on incomplete evidence.

And certainly I have more than once gone into a movie with low expectations and then found I liked it a lot, and vice versa. Harry should at least give the movie a try: he might like it. And as annoying as I’m sure he found it to not be invited to prescreen the movie, he shouldn’t hold that against *the movie* itself.

Tim1974
Tim1974
Fri, May 01, 2009 2:27pm

I think you jumped the gun on this one Mary Ann. I never said a thing about seeing a vulva here. Since there wasn’t any male genitals then there shouldn’t be any female genitals. My post is just to mention that yet again there is only male nudity and once again there is no female nudity. Unfortunately it appears that films intended for males has male nudity and those more intended for females also has more male nudity. My point being, where is the female nudity ?

MaryAnn
MaryAnn
Fri, May 01, 2009 2:30pm

And my point, Tim1974, is “where are the women”? You can’t have female nudity without women, and you can’t have female nudity that isn’t entirely gratutitous without a contextual reason for women to be nude.

Perhaps you want only gratuitous nudity?

Arco
Arco
Fri, May 01, 2009 2:41pm

MaryAnn: Thanks. I pretty much knew it already but…well, like I said, even of Harry this surprised me.

To Tim 1974: where is it written that a movie ‘should’ have equal amounts of male and female nudity? Is it some kind of law? I’d say it differs per movie, what charactes there are and what the story calls for.

And even then, looking back at movie history I’d say female nudity FAR outnumbers male nudity, so the ladies still have some catching up to do. (As I’m sure my wife will do tomorrow, when she soaks up some shiny naked Hugh Jackman;)

Tim1974
Tim1974
Fri, May 01, 2009 3:00pm

The problem is Arca, the bombardment of male nudity. As far as having more female nudity, you don’t make up what for might have been wrong by then discriminating against another group. In this case males. No, it is not written anywhere that there should be equal nudity. However, in our world today where equality has become an important issue, then why isn’t it being followed in films ? It is a present day double standard against males. Maybe it is time for writers/directors/producers to use better judgement and realize that there is a male population that is also interested in seeing as much female nudity as male nudity.

Chris
Chris
Fri, May 01, 2009 3:25pm

Male nudity is code for “funny,” in a lot of films. For some reason.

lunarangel01
lunarangel01
Fri, May 01, 2009 3:42pm

Maybe it is time for writers/directors/producers to use better judgement and realize that there is a male population that is also interested in seeing as much female nudity as male nudity.

SERIOUSLY? Have you not watched movies, especially horror movies and action flicks, for the last 3 decades (if not LONGER)? There are boobs and ass showing in the vast majority of them.

If you want equal nudity, go watch some porn. That’s what it’s for.

Tim1974
Tim1974
Fri, May 01, 2009 4:39pm

I am not talking about the last three decades. Have you not watched movies within the past five years ?????? I can only assume that having the double standard of showing a majority of male nudity is just fine with you. If you are comfortable with injustice to males in reference to nudity, then there is nothing that is going to change your mind. For me, I will continue to seek equality for males in this regards. (BTW, why is it that many females seem to always use the “go see porn” comment when they do not want to address issues that deal with males in reference to nudity ?) I personally find it extremely interesting that many females have no interest in equality.

Tim1974
Tim1974
Fri, May 01, 2009 4:49pm

Oh, and Mary Ann I will state that if they include male nudity then they can also include female nudity. The male nudity was not necessary. It could have been shown without it. But since they did, then let’s see some female nudity too. It isn’t any more difficult to also female nudity than it is to include male nudity. They choose not to do it and therefore it is a double standard. I also find it interesting that you feel the male nudity was necessary but even the thought of including female nudity and you mention it would be gratuitous.

Paul
Paul
Fri, May 01, 2009 5:36pm

For those of you who think MaryAnn is giving this movie too much of a free pass as opposed to other movies, she also warns of her lack of objectivity about the Star Wars and Doctor Who series. Everybody has certain things they just like regardless of what their objective side tells them about it. In my case, that would be Star Trek and Joss Whedon’s shows, two cases of series with variable quality but hey, I like seeing them anyway.

Accounting Ninja
Fri, May 01, 2009 5:48pm

Good lord, not this again. MAJ really hit the nail on the head as to WHY your assertions bother me: Men have far more varied roles in movies, hands down. Movies are far more often written from their points of view, more authentically capture their experiences (and not just, like a woman’s role, filter them through what male writers THINK is your experience, ie. Chick Flicks) and show them in action far more often. It ties into the point I had made on the other thread to you, Tim, that you failed to acknowledge: Even mens’ NUDITY ITSELF is more varied in tone and theme. As MAJ said, Wolverine’s nudity was not of a sexual nature.
And please don’t take that American attitude of “If they are nude it must equal sex” BS. Sex is all in HOW a scene is presented. Wolverine was not sexualized, though he was nude. Tim doesn’t think it was “necessary”, but obviously the story writers for this movie did.

When women are allowed as deep and varying roles as men-and yes! that includes more nudity that ISN’T all “hey, look at me, men, I’m an ogling object, tee hee!”- you will see more female nudity of a casual nature.

I’ll say it again: you maintain that sexism against men is what’s at work here, but it’s just the opposite: men are considered more human and not simply here for the sexual pleasure of women. They have more widely representative roles.

Tim1974
Tim1974
Fri, May 01, 2009 5:59pm

And Ninja I will say again that if they thought it was necessary for the male character then they can find a way to make it necessary for a female character too. And if these films are written by males for males then why isn’t there female nudity ? Why have they forgotten about the population of males who want to see female nudity also ? It is because they choose not to. And that choosing not to is a double standard. And, I had no intention of caring on a discussion this time. I came on only to express my displeasure of yet another film featuring only male nudity. It has become extremely tiresome and redundant.

Victor Plenty
Victor Plenty
Fri, May 01, 2009 6:02pm

MaSch, I’ve seen only glimpses of previews for this, so the age I listed for the characters’ appearance was a rough guess, and there’s no need to insult my acquaintances on that basis.

My point remains the same in either case. Whether they look 20 or 40, it seems they are in fact portrayed as being at least 100 years older than their apparent age. Which is not a big issue for me, but would seem a bigger issue for trivia buffs than scrutinizing the insignia on their uniforms.

Just wanted to clarify that. Now we can all go back to grieving for the poor oppressed male actors who have been forced to appear nude in so many recent Hollywood films, and only been paid millions of dollars for it.

Doa766
Doa766
Fri, May 01, 2009 7:06pm

in any case, inmortal Canadians fighting in all america’s mayor wars is just one of the many examples that could be pointed out to show how mediocre this movie is, let me give you another example: adamantium bullets? despite what some screenwriter with no what the xmen are about might think Wolverine is not a warewolf, also how could stryker posibly know about the memory lost? it’s stupid beyond belief

regarding the nudity don’t forget that the previous three xmen movie had a naked top model painted blue

some guy a few comments ago said something that really pisses me off, he said something about how can people complain about canadians fighting american wars if the movie has people with superpowers and fanatsy all the way through

let me explain something to you in case you haven’t noticed: superheroes are our mithology, the fact that people on other times really believed in Zeus, Rah, Ares, Apolo, Jesus, Mahoma or whoever and no one believes this ones are real is besides the point, they serve the same purpose

and they should be trated with the proper respect, nothing solemne or overly serious but rearrenging facts to suit the purposes of a crap movie like this is just wrong