Uneven pace, but well made

Rating: 6/10 (13 August 2000)

* Warning: 2 spoilers in this review *
Every summer the same thing happens: a new blockbuster film appears. Sometimes the result is astoundingly good (Batman, Matrix), sometimes it is so bad it's not worth even mentioning it (The Phantom Menace), and sometimes it's a mixed bag. X-Men is that mixed bag.
Good points: excellent photography, dark and murky in the mutant fighting scenes, light and airy in the "human" scenes. Nice special effects, although not in the same league by any measure as those in The Matrix. Also, Anna Paquin's character and acting are the best of the bunch.
Bad points: the special effects sometimes actually *detract* from the enjoyment of the film. As an example, Ray Park's fighting scenes are almost non-existant (definite bummer) because his character is always enhanced by SFX in some way or the other. At least in Phantom Menace his lightsaber duels were always visible on screen. In "X-Men", you get to see him leaping from wall to wall and hanging for dear life with his tongue, but not much more. Also there are some continuity issues throughout the film. For example, in the final sequence *SPOILER AHEAD*, Wolverine´s makeup is uneven, and it really shows. When in the scene with Rogue, he sometimes appears scratched, then healed, then scratched again.
But the worst problem with the film is its uneven pace. It starts slow, then tries to catch up only to slow again. *SPOILER AHEAD* When the climax was over, I was wondering whether this was it or if there was any other scene. It wasn´t a climax, really. The action sequences are too few and far between, and it is very difficult for someone who isn't a fan of the X-Men to be interested the whole film. It is simply not compelling enough (if you are not a fan). And this shows also in character development, where you never really get to know the principal characters or their motivations (Wolverine, Charles Xavier, Cyclops, Storm, Toad). Seems like the producers wanted to concentrate on the esthetics of the movie instead of deeper meaning, thinking that fans would already know the basics.

I would have to say a far better example (although similar in many respects, such as photography) of a "comic book" movie is Tim Burton's Batman. This movie has very, very strong principal characters (Joker and Batman, whose life and tribulations are made known with subtle hints), amazing sets (Gotham City's nightmarish landscape beats New York any time) and a dense, complex plot. I am sure this last opinion will be debated, but only time will tell which is the greatest comic book movie. I can hardly wait.