Half Bad

Rating: 2/10 (2 May 2003)

X-MEN
When the initial X-MEN feature was released, I`ve cut it some slack because of Bryan Singer`s previous work. I`ve realized that the movie is part of this cunning Avi Arad strategy of reviving Marvel franchises that began with BLADE. But then, when time went by, when SPIDER-MAN managed to suck so much, when DAREDEVIL appeared to be among the worst major-release directorial efforts ever, on par with ECKS VS. SEVER, I realized that it is not Avi Arad taking care of the franchises. It was New Line taking care of BLADE.
X-2 is considered to be a step forward. And somehow it is better than the first one. But it isn`t the step forward. It is just a healthy step, nothing else. It is the first step. Because the first film should have been X-2.
X-2 has a serious plot. It has enough character development to work with audience that has no knowledge of the comic book or the first film. It really does. X-MEN did develop characters and it sketched the origins but basically it was just a plotless movie that cannot work on its` own. X-2 is a well-shaped film.
The script, written by a comitee, actually offers some smart cues and fine ideas but never really reaches beyond boundaries of halfhearted hacking.
The basic trouble is Singer`s direction. It`s not just that his directorial position means responsibility. It really feels that most of the flaws are directly his own personal fault.
First off, Singer is not an action director. His action scenes are lame. Some of these action scenes are nicely set but they still appear lame. It`s not just the question of his knowledge and talent which is nonexistetnt when it comes to action scenes. It is also his choice to avoid the old school method of fluent action filmmaking. He obviously never goes for the visceral. It`s his concept. A bad one.
He insists on these slow, compiled, action sequences where many details and close-ups obscure his inability to direct big spacious set pieces.
It is a tough thing to sit through a comic book actioner made by a man who can`t and won`t direct energetic action.
Besides, most of the coolest moments happen out of the frame. Check the SWAT raid at Xavier`s School.
There`s also the question of cinematography. Newton Thomas Siegel uses this shady light that is supposed to bring us some sense of realism. Instead it makes al the sets and costumes feel fake.
Bad staging and bad light work reveal other wesknesses. First off, there are some big mistakes in the script. Some howler lines that were supposed to b serious. The whole Nightcrawled affair which is downright terrible.
Also the acting isn`t top notch. Rebecca Romijn Stamos rules not only the toilet scene that was lifted from De Palma`s FEMME FATALE. In the end, it is tough to act in such a superficial enviroment with poorly shot sets and costumes.
The script isn`t brave enough to pull the Grant Morrison twist on the franchise. It sticks to the original Stan Lee vibe with some seventies revisions thrown in. But the Stan Lee vibe makes me compare this one with BATMAN FOEREVER, and it feels like the DC contender had better direction and more consistency even though X-2 feel innovative.
As it was mentioned some of the best scenes in X-2 were lifted form T-2 and FEMME FATALE.
The whole serious minded ideology about mutants being this metaphore for different people doesn`t work because Singer betrayed X-MEN trashy origins but failed to provide us with solid groundwork for this serious, and politically correct, agenda.
X-2 isn`t a complete failure. It isn`t disgrsceful and unbearable. But it isn`t as good as superhero flicks ought to be in 2003.