Spectacular form with little substance

Rating: 7/10 (4 December 2000)

Though highly imaginative with astounding visual effects, `X-Men' explodes onto celluloid much the same way as most of the other comic book films, with a weak and predictable plot and characters as two dimensional as their paper counterparts. This is not to say that it isn't entertaining because it is. It is very high on filmmaking `coolness' and the action is intense and impressive. However, it suffers from excessive form and very little substance.
The science in this so-called science fiction story is laughable. If we are to accept the premise presented here, suddenly, over a period of about 50 years, man takes a quantum leap in evolution and dozens of people develop superhuman powers with none of powers duplicated in any two mutants. There is no explanation as to what triggered so many drastic mutations; it is just a sudden acceleration of evolution. Well, evolution doesn't work that way, not even close. Major evolutionary changes are generally separated by thousands or millions of years and it will usually be a single change in a species that elevates the whole species. So the concept is really more fantasy than science fiction.
`Lighten up', you say. `Who cares if it is science fiction or fantasy anyway? It is just an awesome movie!' That's a good point. However, even fantasy films need a plot. `X-Men' trots out the same tired storyline; good superheroes battle to save the world from bad superheroes as mere mortals helplessly look on. There is nothing remotely novel or interesting about the story.
The film tries to make itself socially relevant with platitudinous comparisons between social injustice in human history and the persecution of the poor superhuman mutants. However, the comparison is inapt since true persecution always flows from the strong to the weak and not vice-versa as depicted here. Feeling sorry for the mutants is like pitying wealthy corporate executives because everyone fears and despises them. They have the power. How much sympathy can we have for them?
At the risk of inducing a lot of impassioned e-mail, I have to diverge from popular opinion about how great this film was. This film was all sizzle and no steak. There was only one character with a shred of substance and that was Wolverine (Hugh Jackman). The rest were just cardboard cutouts.
In 1995, at the age of 29, wunderkind director Bryan Singer directed a brilliant and exquisitely complex film called `The Usual Suspects'. He then burst into flames with `Apt Pupil', a dreadful film about a boy who became enamored with an elderly Nazi war criminal who was trying to live out his life quietly in the U.S. After that disaster, he went underground until `X-Men'. This film showed that Singer is a stickler for detail and he knows how to make a stupendously vacuous action flick, but it shows not a shred of nuance that would earn it the right to stand in the shadow of `Suspects'. That film showed that he has a certain directorial genius, but we are not likely to see it emerge again if he keeps taking lucrative, but shallow projects like this.
The acting; well, there wasn't much acting to be done. Anna Pacquin and Hugh Jackman had the only parts that weren't utterly superficial. Both of them did a good job, actually conjuring up some emotions other than resolute righteousness. Rebecca Romijn-Stamos looked about as sexy as a human being could when covered in reptilian body armor, and she said all six of her lines like a true professional.
I'm being overly hard on the film. It wasn't bad. It was very enjoyable. It just didn't deserve the raves that were doted on it. I rated it a 7/10 on the strength of the visual effects and the action sequences. These areas were an easy 10/10. The screenplay was about a 3/10. It's definitely worth seeing, but leave your brain at the door.