Better then X-men 3

Rating: 7/10 (26 April 2009)

X-men 3 was so dire and so the only way this could go was up for me but it will be a long time before they bring the standard back up to that of the first two movies.
The mistake that Hollywood and a lot of TV in general make these days is lack of character development. They want to see a half dozen characters thrown into different situations and they want it all done in one movie. How can you feel any form of loss for a character if you have no connection with them?
Was it a bad movie?
No, it just wasn't a good movie. You don't come away feeling like you were there. You don't feel a part of the movie like you might have with the first or second. The great thing about X-men 1 was that they showed various characters but it was in passing, they might be sat in a class room and using their abilities just so you can point and go Ah! that's who that is.
But here they try to apply those characters willy nilly and a lot of questions start to pop up.
Here is a spoiler but a good example of poor forward planning. At one point its suggested that shooting wolverine through the head will kill him or take him out of the equation. Yet knowing this they send "Agent Zero", a character who has perfect marksmanship at incredible range, to face Wolverine without these adamantium bullets? They even mention that its pretty much a suicide run for agent zero, yet if he's their best shot at taking him out then why waste him?
Surely that's just common sense, we can only kill him with these bullets, well lets give these bullets to the incredible marksman then.
Its an OK movie, its on par with the original hulk movie or Dare Devil. It deserves to be rated higher for the action sequences alone but poor script writing lets this movie down.
Watch it when it comes out on Sky, don't bother seeing it at the cinema