Less is More

Rating: Null/10 (17 July 2000)

"X-Men" left me pleasantly satisfied. I was not blown away, nor did I feel like cinema had been redefined. But I felt that what I had seen was very good. Bryan Singer and his production team have overcome pretty formidable odds - fan & studio pressure, reduced time and money, iconic source material, not to mention a last-minute actor replacement (Hugh Jackman for Dougray Scott) - to create a nicely-paced, intriguing, and well-produced fantasy adventure with strong performances, good action scenes, and well-done special effects. Almost as fascinating as the film and the hype has been the aftermath. Mainstream reviews from folks like Roger Ebert and Michael Wilmington at Chicago Tribune have ranged from underwhelmed to outright dislike. While on the other hand, response in alternative press, sci-fi fansites and fan postings has been overwhelmingly positive. Where lies the schism, I wonder. Comparing some reviews, I find it almost hard to believe that everyone watched the same movie. One person accuses the film of drowning in special effects, while another says there are not enough. A critic decries the lack of character development, while a non-X-Men-comic book fan says they clearly understood each character.
I will be the first to admit, the film requires a leap of faith just to accept the initial premise - that genetic mutation would result in divergent and fantastic abilities like weather control and laser-beam eyes. It seems that everyone's ability to suspend disbelief and buy into the film lies at a different level, a problem that also occurred with Singer's "The Usual Suspects" (one of my personal favorites). I will also agree that the large number of characters has resulted in unbalanced plot development, with a lot of exposition time and ciphers abounding. Halle Berry's Storm is an especially unfortunate casualty, barely registering until the action, and then not as tough as her comic book counterpart. I am guessing a lot of this is due to the 45 minutes the studio had Singer cut from the movie. However, those details did not detract from my overall enjoyment of the film, or taking pleasure in what I regarded as its successes. The film benefits enormously from Singer's deliberate decision to play everything straight, without the camp that marred other comic book ventures. When humor does occur, it grows naturally out of the situation and attitudes (Cyclops:"Where's my motorcycle";Wolverine: "You're a dick"). I also liked the fact that the actor's all underplayed their lines. Amid the fantastic trappings and special effects, over-the-top villainy or histrionic heroism would have destroyed the film. When the action scenes kick in, with digital effects, explosions, morphing, and wire-work kung-fu, Singer still keeps things very straightforward and matter of fact. He does not dwell upon the fantastic nature of what is going on, nor drag out the fight scenes for the sake of fighting. Take the initial Wolverine-Sabertooth encounter and subsequent rescue by Storm and Cyclops. Each being uses their powers according to the rules laid out. Nothing is delayed for artificial dramatic effect, it just happens. No one talks when they're fighting, probably cause in real life, no one would. This approach does remove an emotional element from the fight scenes that occurs in other films (i.e. The Matrix), but that is because Singer, as always, has goals that are more intellectual than emotional. The climatic destruction of Magneto's mutant device and rescue of Rogue is not what interests him the most, but the aftermath and what it says about the characters: Wolverine has proven himself to the team, our novice heroes have had their first trial by fire, Magneto now knows how far Xavier's team will go to stop him. Again, much of this is inferred. Singer does not spell it out, which I found to be a welcome change. Though the film generally moves well, it does have an episodic and stop & go quality. This did not bother me too much, since the original comic books tended to be episodic, though I am guessing part of this is actually due to last-minute re-writing and studio-imposed cutting. Most fascinating for me was the realization of the extent to which "X-Men" manifested all the fears and fantasies of childhood through adolescence. As children, we often feel small and helpless. The origin of Magneto's contempt of mankind is traced to the boyhood trauma of watching his parents' killed, an honest fear even I can recall experiencing as a young child. Marie/Rogue embodies adolescent terrors of puberty, budding sexuality, and the feeling of isolation (which extends to all mutants). At the same time, we see images of what we would like to be. Cyclops is the handsome, clean-cut hero. As Xavier's number one guy, he's the jock, prom king, guy who dates the cutest girl in school - we awkward nerds might hate him (as Wolverine does), but we also envy him. At the same time, Wolverine is that other side boys fantasize about - tough, street-smart, rebellious, a loner. He's the superhero equivalent of James Dean. Then there is Professor X - wealthy, all-knowing, all-powerful, and the guy in charge. The film is dotted with other childhood fantasies: running away from home (Rogue), beating up bullies/authority figures (Mystique to Senator Kelly: "It's because of people like you I was afraid to go to school"), anonymity (Mystique's shape-shifting), powers contrasting one's size or limitations (Professor X is handicapped but telepathic; Toad is ugly, yet a deadly killer). Returning to a previous thought, if we fear lack of control, then our desire for control is represented by Storm (weather), Professor X (thought), and Jean Grey (matter). Perhaps this explains the split. Fans tend to be younger than critics; maybe the film speaks clearer to them. I have noticed that people who have seen the film close to my age (27) or younger have enjoyed it the most. For us, we still feel a bit like X-Men.