There’s one thing this movie got wrong. Charles Xavier would never, even in his young and very depressed days, have ever used the word “weaponised.” Other than that, it was pretty good.
There were some pretty good and pretty bad reviews for this film, which is often a sign that it’s interesting. In this case, it’s an unashamedly plot-driven movie that doesn’t feel the burden to flesh out every character in gigantic detail, and thus annoys adherents to what you might call the “standard literary model.” That said, I have been contaminated by my time doing the MA or may be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, because I actually wished for more depth and info on motivation sometimes. But that would have made the movie too long, and probably felt forced. After all, you are generally left guessing in real life, or it’s something very comman and simple, like greed.
Hugh Jackman is all veiny and looks rather unhealthily pumped up. Do girls really find that attractive? Is his health going to suffer?
I hope that the appearance of Peter Dinklage as Trask was a piece of enlightened casting. I would like to think that they put out the advert, Dinklage applied, they asked themselves “Does Trask’s height make any difference to the story? Does he look suitably villainous in sideburns? Then sign him up!”
The violence in the film got pretty nasty at times, with some rather traumatising experiences dished out. How on earth was it a 12A? I shall probably need one of the perennial posts on violence in media sometime…