X-Men: First Class

Phenomenal! Vaughn brings the series back to where it originally started. As a comic book movie that uses its brain where others flex their muscles, it doesn't for a moment compromise on the audience-appealing spectacle, which doesn't lack wit, exaggeration, and... action. It is mature in its acting, plot, and direction, with no dead spots or lapses in pace. I’ll have more to say (hopefully) after the second viewing. Now I am just reveling in the memories of a film that was satisfying in every way. PS: There is nothing for me to add the second time either. Except that Fassbender rules like nobody’s business. Perfect in every detail. (02.06.2011)

A fun blockbuster, but Singer’s X-Men are still better. Those two hours went very fast and I certainly wasn’t bored, but after the excellent reviews and trailers, I can’t help but feel mildly disappointed. It’s just too shallow and straightforward, played only for effect (so many dramatic looks!) and without any depth. There are some very silly moments (for instance, when Eric moves the big satellite), though fortunately, they are outnumbered by the cool ones. But even in the strongest moments I had the feeling that it could be more polished (Eric agitated in the concentration camp, Shaw’s attack on the CIA, the flying submarine), and the number of scenes of the type “the characters stand stiff waiting for something to happen, and when something does happen, they start moving on command” was above the tolerable limit. I didn’t leave the cinema with negative feelings, though – the last half hour is quite bombastic – but I still feel that it could have been better. PS: The most surprising thing today was the rosy hell of the trailer for The Magical Duvet. Someone must have thought it has the same target audience. :-) (02.06.2011)

Don’t let my high rating mislead you. Matthew Vaughn doesn’t pick up where Bryan Singer left off; his movie is closer to Brett Ratner’s X-Men: The Last Stand. What makes Vaughn better than Ratner, however, is the balance between childishness and maturity in telling the story (both are present in Vaughn’s work while Ratner was just childish), remarkably more characters and a much faster pace (at “normal” speed, the film would have lasted three hours) and much more epic, top-notch action, which never seems botched up or over-the-top. This properly colorful eye-candy action-packed blockbuster, which will impress even teen viewers (for whom Singer’s films were too psychological), is made more playful by the fact that its best scene is a few-second-long “go-fuck-yourself” cameo by Hugh Jackman lounging around in a seedy bar. By this, the creators prove that they didn’t choose this direction because they were unable to follow in Singer’s footsteps, but because they know how to perfect this pulp genre and bring more pleasure to a wider audience than anyone before. Of the actors, Michael Fassbender turns in the best performance; I can easily see him as a new Ethan Hunt or James Bond (the second-best scene of the movie, which coincidentally also takes place in a bar, is Fassbender’s in Argentina). Kevin Bacon makes a very convincing villain. James McAvoy is more or less okay, which, however, is not enough for the character of Charles Xavier. The rest of the cast are just their sidekicks, but the cameos by a number of stars (e.g. Platt and Ironside) are nice. (01.06.2011)

Somehow I can’t bring myself to give this movie five stars, mainly because I’ve never been exactly fond of X-Men. The movies were great, but I never thought, like with Watchmen, that they were perfect and that I would devour every movie that had the word X-Men in the title. Anyway, I don’t mind X-men and that was also the reason why I gave this movie a go. However, I must say that this film is probably the best thing that could have happened to the franchise, because in addition to great actors, it features an absolutely perfect story, which, if you do not know the source material, you do not know how it will develop in the next moments. And that it will eventually develop differently than is customary in American films? That’s the icing on the cake. If I said a moment ago that actors were great, then I need to repeat that because they were truly divine. That goes for probably everyone who appears in the film, and there are a lot of characters. For example, the one-minute cameo of Hugh Jackman is totally great. The same goes for the special effects. I felt a bit sorry that X-Men weren’t closer to my heart. But if another film is made, which could easily happen, I will think about going to see it at the cinema. It seems that I’ve grown fond of X-Men after all. (29.12.2012)

I had hoped that Vaughn’s contribution to the franchise would be for non-fans of X-Men what J.J. Abrams last film was for non-fans of Star Trek. It’s not. The desire to establish a mutant fan club didn’t arise. They wouldn’t necessarily have had to emulate the enjoyable Bondian feeling (starting with Fassbender, who resembles a young Sean Connery, continuing with the overly self-regarding sixties design and ending with the closing credits), the more or less successful combining of the grown-up (restoration of a myth) with the childish (action nonsense), the fictional with the real…. It would have been enough to write a balanced screenplay, cast actors who are capable of delivering “grand” speeches, not rely solely on editing but also on the mise-en-scene here and there, and exaggerate, but within the limits of genre stylisation. (Yes, with appropriate exaggeration, a bit in the spirit of Command & Conquer: Red Alert, you can even get away with a flying submarine.) This is the first X-Men film that is not a groundbreaking work taking the genre into new dimensions, instead merely stepping across the genre boundaries where Singer has already tread (the sociological dimension and the openness of the queer interpretation, but it is superbly entertaining from start to finish, though never with its silliness. 80% (30.05.2011)