Jump to content

WOLVERINE


origin1950
 Share

Recommended Posts

Saw the movie with my buddies. Enjoyed it. The cast was good..... Didn't care much for Dominic Monaghan's character and I think that Daniel Henney was only decent as Zero. They could have chosen a better character or just made the character of Maverick instead. Ryan Reynolds was fun for the short time he was on screen. They fucked up Deadpool with the add-ons. Still enjoyed it though.

 

 

 

Stay after the credits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 667
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest AdminGuyX
Much like a discussion with Noeland in the Watchmen thread...when I found out he didn't like Moore, his not liking the movie really doesn't have that much validity to me, someone who loves more.

 

SO, you lied to me in that thread then?

 

I asked you:

Are you saying my opinion isn't valid because I never read the comic book?

 

Your reply:

No. I'm saying that since I enjoy Moore and loved his comic and you don't dig his stuff that we will probably disagree on the film as well.

 

AHA!

 

Red handed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO, you lied to me in that thread then?

 

No...that's pretty much saying the same thing. If you didn't like the source material, of course you aren't going to like the film. I liked the source material so my outlook on the film itself should be better. Where is the "lie"? In your illustration above I'm saying the exact same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not ganging up on you Fred, but I think I see the point Noeland is trying to make.

Sorry to butt my head in this . . . but I had a thought.

 

I think he's saying that you acted (in Watchmen thread) as if his review WAS valid. And that's how I interpreted it too

Here you are using his thoughts on Watchmen to illustrate how you never put any stock in what Noeland said because he is not a fan of the material/Moore. ie, that his opinion is invalid.

You do see the contradiction don't you?

 

I kinda think the source material or the original creator kinda becomes irrelevant at some point when it comes to film adaptation in this equation.

Those original creators are so often excluded from the proceedings (as in the self-imposed non-cooperation in Moore's particular case).

In other words, if you came to the theater and paid your money then there must have been something that compelled you to do so.

And speaking for myself, I don't waste my time or money investing in things that don't interest me.

I'm not even curious enough anymore to see HOW BAD something is ;)

 

Whether you are familiar with or like/dislike the source material is the part that's irrelevant if you've paid yer dough.

You are there judging the film adaptation on it's OWN merits.

Now subjectivity notwithstanding, judging that film on it's own merit IS valid regardless of someone's opinion of the original creator.

The subjectivity is what I think is at issue.

In other words, had Noeland liked Watchmen, you'd see that his feelings about Moore had nothing to do with his enjoyment of the film.

The fact that he didn't embrace Watchmen is JUST as valid.

 

I think I see what you were trying to say Fred, I just don't think Noeland's thoughts on Moore/Watchmen - Snyder/Watchmen in relation to the subject of Ebert's being out of touch with Wolverine is the same thing at all. Ebert's bias comes from a completely different set of subjective circumstances.

 

Just my two cents . . . spend it or toss it ;)

 

x0 - TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After I got a good (well, crappy) nights sleep, and thought about this movie, I've come to the conclusion that I did not like it, over all. I liked some things, but I found myself laughing, and sometimes almost crying with how they did certain things. I don't really want to go into much detail yet, because the movie just came out, and it would be wise for me let everyone else get the chance to see it.

 

I did think the acting was pretty good, with Liev pretty much stealing the show, which I think most of us suspected would happen. I thought there was a lot of stuff they just rushed through.

Like when the film starts, and they just rush through all of the wars. I really wanted to see them spend more time with that. Hell, at least half an hour. I thought a lot of the cgi was over the top, like the part where Wolverine is slicing that fire escape, it looked like something out of a bugs bunny cartoon. And I didn't quite understand how certain characters like Wade Wilson and Agent Zero were able to move the way they did. Was that their power? Or did they escape from the Matrix? I don't ever recall seeing Gambit being as powerful as he was in the movie. There was a lot of cheese, and some scenes made me cringe, almost as bad as War Zone. I thought the plot was pretty much just all over the place too. All in all, I would like to see a sequel, but a darker one, and one where Wolverine and Victor are mortal enemies. And since when has Wolverine ever been able to dispatch Sabertooth as easily as he did in the end of the movie?

 

Well, that's most of my rant. Feel free to disagree, and call me down to the lowest if you wish :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not casting aspersions at this film, I haven't seen it yet.

But when your film is called WOLVERINE I think it's too bad that someone NOT WOLVERINE is the one that steals the show.

I wanna see Jackman unbridled, UNLEASHED. I want HIM to rule in this domain, not for someone else (even as talented as Liev Schrieber) to steal the show.

 

- TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not casting aspersions at this film, I haven't seen it yet.

But when your film is called WOLVERINE I think it's too bad that someone NOT WOLVERINE is the one that steals the show.

I wanna see Jackman unbridled, UNLEASHED. I want HIM to rule in this domain, not for someone else (even as talented as Liev Schrieber) to steal the show.

 

- TB

 

Well, Hugh does have the most screen time in the movie. I can't think of many scenes he's not in, so no worries there. ;) I really mean that, from my own POV, Liev stole the show. He was not actually in the movie as much as I expected him to be (Liev, that is).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no, I get what you mean. Ya gotta know it's Jackman's film, no question.

But I guess if someone is scene stealing (normally a good connotation, sometimes bad results) you want it to be the bad guy.

Just hope he doesn't steal the movie as a whole. We expected it, as it was rather designed that way with Dark Knight.

This shouldn't have that dynamic. Hopefully it's balanced well.

 

- TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the WORST movies I have ever seen. Growing up, Wolverine was my favorite character. I had low expectations for this film from all of the trailers and it was so much worse than I expected. From the opening credits on, I hated this movie. I'm so disappointed.

 

I know a lot of people hate X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, but that's a masterpiece compared to this. I would watch that again in a second. I don't know if I ever want to watch WOLVERINE again. It would be really hard to say which is worse, PWZ or this garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, a glowing appraisal!

 

Knowing how Brian and I feel about film I'm reasonably sure I'll have a similar response, still, I have to see for myself cause we don't ALWAYS see eye to eye.

 

I don't mean to be an evil harbinger, especially as I have not seen the film, but I really hate it when "the more you see the less you like" thing happens to a film you've been eagerly anticipating. For me it's gone like this -

 

Announcement - Awesome!

Teaser trailer - Cool!

Trailer 1, or Comicon trailer - WOW.

Trailer 2 - Not quite so wow.

Trailer 3 - Seeing more is worrying me.

Trailer 4 and subsequent sneak peeks - Getting real worried.

 

Opinion of the film by someone I know personally and respect - "Garbage."

 

Damn.

I don't think any of this would matter if I was 15.

Oh to be 15 again. At least for a few hours.

 

- TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest AdminGuyX

Shit. Bad reviews and bad word of mouth is all I'm reading and hearing about this. Even the folks who like it seem reserved about how much they like it.

 

It's a real shame. This could have been/should have been something special.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not ganging up on you Fred, but I think I see the point Noeland is trying to make.

Sorry to butt my head in this . . . but I had a thought.

 

I think he's saying that you acted (in Watchmen thread) as if his review WAS valid. And that's how I interpreted it too

Here you are using his thoughts on Watchmen to illustrate how you never put any stock in what Noeland said because he is not a fan of the material/Moore. ie, that his opinion is invalid.

You do see the contradiction don't you?

 

I kinda think the source material or the original creator kinda becomes irrelevant at some point when it comes to film adaptation in this equation.

Those original creators are so often excluded from the proceedings (as in the self-imposed non-cooperation in Moore's particular case).

In other words, if you came to the theater and paid your money then there must have been something that compelled you to do so.

And speaking for myself, I don't waste my time or money investing in things that don't interest me.

I'm not even curious enough anymore to see HOW BAD something is ;)

 

Whether you are familiar with or like/dislike the source material is the part that's irrelevant if you've paid yer dough.

You are there judging the film adaptation on it's OWN merits.

Now subjectivity notwithstanding, judging that film on it's own merit IS valid regardless of someone's opinion of the original creator.

The subjectivity is what I think is at issue.

In other words, had Noeland liked Watchmen, you'd see that his feelings about Moore had nothing to do with his enjoyment of the film.

The fact that he didn't embrace Watchmen is JUST as valid.

 

I think I see what you were trying to say Fred, I just don't think Noeland's thoughts on Moore/Watchmen - Snyder/Watchmen in relation to the subject of Ebert's being out of touch with Wolverine is the same thing at all. Ebert's bias comes from a completely different set of subjective circumstances.

 

Just my two cents . . . spend it or toss it ;)

 

x0 - TB

 

Great to hear from you Tim. I really don't see the insult to Noeland or the "lie" in what I said. I read both statements as pretty much the same. Noeland may not have read the source material and I doubt Ebert has ever read Wolverine. Nor do I think either would enjoy said book because of statements made in their reviews. I did NOT intend to insult Noeland. I think Roger Ebert is for the most part an idiot. I think Noeland is a very brilliant motherfucker who I happen to disagree with on some movies and comics. Alan Moore appears to be one of those. Noeland stated in the Watchmen thread that he doesn't like Moore and that he hasn't read the comic. Most reviews I have heard state that it is pretty faithful to Moore's book. So not liking a movie that is pretty faithful to source material that I enjoyed doesn't exaclty dissuade me from seeing the film.

 

Once again I manage to make an ass out of myself on the RAW boards.

 

Fred

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, not at all Fred, and I think Noeland was just hackin' on you in good spirit.

 

I'm pretty sure I knew what you meant when you cited the watchmen thread I just don't necessarily agree that it reenforced the point you were trying to make. It seemed to me like two different circumstances when you really break it down. But who really cares right? It's all semantics.

If I wasn't goofing around today with nothing better to do I doubt I'd have butted in ;)

OK, I do have lots of things to do but I'm imposing a free day for myself. I need it

 

Have you seen Wolverine yet?

Is all this reaction making you as depressed as I am?

 

I really feel they try to jam too much into these things. I almost wish Wolvie wasn't such a popular character.

Of course it would be that much harder to get a film off the ground but in the end it wouldn't be so wrought with things like having to stick in characters just to please a fan base. I've been reading Wolvie for a long long time and I don't remember Deadpool making any early origin-like appearances in Logan's past. Oooh, let's stick in Gambit! Why? Just to please fanboys? I think you could make a pretty great Wolvie film without all the fanboy indulgence. You don't need all of that when you have a great lead and a great villain (or two).

 

I'm going to go see this because I love the character and Jackman's portrayal, and for Danny Huston and to a certain extent, Liev.

But I'm so tired of having to look at him "fang grinning" . . . I'm already sick to death of looking at Sabertooth's face ;)

 

- TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going tomorrow. I'm with Tim on this though, the more I see the less excited and the more worried I am about the film. At this point I'm just hoping I like it better than X-3, which is sad in it's self. Terminator at least is having the opposite effect on me. The more I see the more I'm getting excited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heh, not at all Fred, and I think Noeland was just hackin' on you in good spirit.

 

I'm pretty sure I knew what you meant when you cited the watchmen thread I just don't necessarily agree that it reenforced the point you were trying to make. It seemed to me like two different circumstances when you really break it down. But who really cares right? It's all semantics.

If I wasn't goofing around today with nothing better to do I doubt I'd have butted in ;)

OK, I do have lots of things to do but I'm imposing a free day for myself. I need it

 

Have you seen Wolverine yet?

Is all this reaction making you as depressed as I am?

 

I really feel they try to jam too much into these things. I almost wish Wolvie wasn't such a popular character.

Of course it would be that much harder to get a film off the ground but in the end it wouldn't be so wrought with things like having to stick in characters just to please a fan base. I've been reading Wolvie for a long long time and I don't remember Deadpool making any early origin-like appearances in Logan's past. Oooh, let's stick in Gambit! Why? Just to please fanboys? I think you could make a pretty great Wolvie film without all the fanboy indulgence. You don't need all of that when you have a great lead and a great villain (or two).

 

I'm going to go see this because I love the character and Jackman's portrayal, and for Danny Huston and to a certain extent, Liev.

But I'm so tired of having to look at him "fang grinning" . . . I'm already sick to death of looking at Sabertooth's face ;)

 

- TB

 

Yeah, it's pretty damned depressing to see the reviews for both this AND The Watchmen (neither of which I have made it out to see yet...kids). My wife is pretty happy about the Gambit thing and I think Reynolds is perfect for Deadpool (who historically is Weapon X, but didn't come around until late in the New Mutants run...the best thing Liefeld ever gave us), but I agree that they seem to be cramming too much in. But, such was the case with Spiderman and the past few Xmen films.

 

I'm still planning on seeing both, but I'm not nearly as excited...

 

But...somewhere...a sad little man is crying into his pillow, cradling his claws. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well in regards to Liev stealing the show over Jackman.... The way I look at it is like this: All fans have already seen Hugh Jackman as Wolverine in 3 movies. We know how he portrays him and we already knew what he was going to bring to the table. So why would he steal the movie? It's almost as if we already knew how he was going to be you know?

 

You go from Tyler Mane as Sabretooth who only had like 4 lines in X-Men, then you have a damn good actor in Liev Schreiber making Sabretooth a complete badass. Taking names and kicking ass. Everything we wanted to see in a supervillain.

 

Also I personally think, if you liked the X-Men films, you'll like this. Yes it has it's cheesy sequences and many questions will be asked in regards to characters being out of place and maybe not belonging in the film but it is what it is. Too late to make changes so I think we should deal with it as best as we can and not let these things ruin the movie for us.

 

-Raf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good attempt at a rationalization Raf -

 

Yes it has it's cheesy sequences and many questions will be asked in regards to characters being out of place and maybe not belonging in the film but it is what it is. Too late to make changes so I think we should deal with it as best as we can and not let these things ruin the movie for us.

 

 

Raf - You are going to like this film, negative comments are not going to change that ;)

Obviously it's too late to make changes. Speaking for myself I'm commenting on what I've seen, what I know already, and it does rather ruin the film for me to a certain extent. Can I look past it and enjoy the film for what it is? That remains to be seen. You say "yes it has cheesy sequences", that ain't making me feel like standing in line ;) I'm still trying to wrap my mind around your first paragraph. I believe I understand what you are trying to say though. Is it a deal breaker? Haven't seen the film yet. Speculation is all it is. I just don't have a good feeling. What is certain is that my criteria and your criteria for what constitutes an excellent filmgoing experience are vastly different in cases like this.

 

And that's fine and dandy. Really do hope you diggit.

 

 

- tb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw it yesterday:

 

ATTENTION, some minor SPOILERS!

 

 

It's a fun, entertaining action film that fits pretty well into the "X-Men" series, but it could have been better and leaves some things to be desired, especially if you look at it as a standalone film. Personally I would have liked to see a darker, more brutal and more character-driven movie with a bit less humor (the Blob fight?) and a more focused plot. The production felt a bit rushed and it was unnecessarily overloaded with characters. You kind of get the sense that they couldn't decide exactly what story they want to tell, so they put too much material into one film - Wolverine's origins, the wars, his romantic relationships, his feud with Victor Creed, the Weapon X program, Stryker and his special team... they could have taken that content and make 2 films or something. The fact that James (or Jimmy, or Logan, btw: why is he suddenly called Logan later on, any explanation that I missed?) is almost immortal and participated in all those wars and stuff is also not used to it's full extent. The short montage is visually cool and it's a nice summary, but there was more potential in terms of the storytelling. Again, they tried to put too much into one film and that's why some elements are too short and only truncated.

The appearances of young Cyclops, Xavier and a couple of other mutants are nice setups for the "X-Men" films, but they bring very little to this story if you look at it as a standalone film. You will enjoy this a lot more if you have seen the other movies beforehand, of course. Gambit is cool but his role is not really important either, there is just not much to his character besides his powers. Characters like Wade Wilson have a good introduction, but then they suddenly drop out of the picture, because of the conglomerate plot. Another wasted opportunity.

A positive and interesting change from the comics is that Logan and Victor are brothers, I thought that was clever. I'm divided about what they did with Wade/Deadpool. I mean it's a cool fight and it gives Wolvie a nice oneliner, but again, I hoped that we would see more of the character before that experiment. In terms of the experiment and Logan's operation to become Wolverine: I thought it would appear more painful (remember the flashback in "X2" with the blood on his hands...) and with a greater impact, for example that he would have lost his memories right there, because of the operation. Also I would have liked if he really felt pain when the new claws came out, especially the first few times (thinking about the scene in "X-Men" when Rogue asks him if it hurts and he says "every time"), although the scene in the bathroom of the old couple was funny.

The movie has some great action and the effects are good overall. Very solid performances throughout. Jackman IS Wolverine. I think that Liev Schreiber as Victor was great casting (I wonder why they didn't show how Sabretooth changed, because he obviously looks very different in the first "X-Men"?), I also liked Ryan Reynolds. Danny Huston did a good job, but he can't beat Brian Cox.

 

7 out of 10 bone claws

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me and the wife LOVE Wolverine, our 1st son is called Logan for pete's sake. So I went into the film wanting so much to love it. I was dissapointed... but I still liked it. What they did well they did VERY well and all the characters crammed in changes and so on, though a downer, don't detract from the fact that Wolvie got to Kick ass. On the big screen!

 

Now here's my take on it.

 

Wade Wilson was Ace..... Deadpool was cack! (that's rubbish in BRIT :) )

 

Gambit looked the part but what was up with the accent... sometimes you could tell he was trying.. other times he just didn't seem to bother.

 

Sabertooth, Blob, Agent Zero, Wraith and "Merry" were all OK, not great, not terrible.

 

Wolvie.. well short of 1970's Jack Nicholson being transported to the here and now to play him I'm VERY happy with Jackman. Thumbs up.

 

If they pegged Patrick Stewarts skin back so he could play young Chucky X why not do the same for Brian Cox!! It needed a GREAT actor to help it along. Brian Cox is the BOMB! (on a side note, anyone seen Manhunter? His Hannibal is a bagillion times scarier than (and being a Welshman this is difficult to say) Sir Anthony Hopkins)

 

All in all it was dissapointing... Not the worst film ever but no where near it's potential.

 

Oh and Emma Frost is Silver Fox's sister? hmmmmm... Loads of the cast were apparently COVERED is bruises from the amount of shoe horning of character into the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty disappointing, there's plenty of fucking continuity issues here too. Like all of a sudden Cyclops fires heat blast from his eyes instead of concussive force, but then why the hell weren't Creed's cloths burned up after getting hit with it, the completely moved the Weapon X facility, and Wolverine's escape was pretty lame and really soft, it was handled better in X2 without even showing much, where was that shot Wolverine all bloody screaming? I like Danny Huston , he's a great actor and was pretty good in this, but he's no Brian Cox (another continuity issue, where was the southern accent?) they really should have just moved it up from 'Nam to Gulf War and gotten Cox back, that way they really wouldn't have had to worry about making it as period accurate, and like I said they could have gotten Cox back.

 

Also, there was some really shitty CGI in this, I mean that scene in the bathroom with Wolverine and his new adamantium claws just horrible, it looked like crappy animation from some shitty PS2 game, not to mention other smaller bits. Oh and I got the Deadpool ending.

 

I would have never thought that Gavin Hood would have made a worse X-Men movie than Brett Ratner, it's a crazy world we live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This means two Marvel films that were very disappointing. I'm not sure which one I was more disappointed with; this or War Zone. I think I enjoyed this more than war zone, and there was not as much cheesy dialogue, and horrible accents.

 

It has been said already, but they crammed WAY too much shit in this movie, and why in the hell would they not bring Brian Cox back? He WANTED to reprise his role!

 

This movie should have been part one of two, or possibly three. I think it would have been cool to bring Wolverine into the modern times, for a sequel, of course. Oh well, hopefully they can correct some shit for a sequel.

 

And adamantium bullets are the worst fucking thing I have ever heard of. I thought he was just traumitized in the comics, and that's why he lost his memory. Or he could have lost it during the adamantium feed. Who wrote this crap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, the movie apparently takes place in 1979 and ell you saw the digitally de-aged Xavier at the end right? Like I said if they just moved it up to Logan and Creed in the Gulf War instead of 'Nam, they could have used Cox.

 

The adamantium bullets could have worked fine, if Stryker thought they would kill Wolverine but they had to add the whole "his memories won't heal" bullshit.

 

It's also worth noting that I thought Durand was actually pretty great as Blob, as short as his role was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Durand was good in the role, but he's a very imposing looking guy, I always thought he would have made a great sabertooth. Maybe he'll play Omega red in the next movie :P .

 

Apparently the movie made $35 million in it's first night. I'd say the weekend total will be around 85-90.

 

http://www.superherohype.com/news/x-mennews.php?id=8297

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...