May 05, 2009


Short review: It's not great, but it's worth watching at some point. There are some things that are annoying, but they cast the movie well. The script is a bit bland and overly packed with fights, but it does do a good job laying out a backstory for Wolverine and tying him to several characters from the previous films. They also waste a lot of time and special effects money introducing a slew of mutants that really don't serve any function in the movie other than "Oh snap, it's Emma Frost!"

Overall, I'd give it a C, or a 70% or whatever. Not great, not terrible, worth watching.

What I *don't* understand is that I've seen several people online give essentially the same review that I just did, but say, "It's not great, but it's not Daredevil or Superman Returns bad." I still don't get what was so terrible about those movies. I don't think either was great, but though I though Superman Returns was better than Daredevil, I've seen much worse than either. Here are the main points that I remember people making against them:

Daredevil: They changed Daredevil and Bullseye's costumes. They made Kingpin black. The park scene with Electra was bad.

Superman Returns: They reused the airplane scene from the earlier Superman movies. They made Superman a deadbeat dad.

None of those were very convincing to me at the time, and I don't find them terribly convincing now. So, can anyone explain why those movies are considered at or near the bottom of the superhero barrel?


Unknown said...

I've never seen either movie. I tried to watch Superman Returns, but after about 45 minutes I was so utterly bored that I wasn't able to continue. That rarely happens to me, but it may have just been a fluke. I intend to revisit the movie eventually, but it's not a priority. I have no interest whatsoever in Daredevil, and probably won't see Wolverine either.

Pete said...

Hello there,

Thanks for this announcement. Look like to bookmark this informative site..

Permanente Ontharing