X-Men (2000) User Reviews (1,539)

Pretty good!

[NpMoviez · 8/10 · 18 June 2019]

There are some films which take the genre to some other level. This film is definitely the one to do so in the superhero genre.

Good : There's a whole bunch of good things that I can talk about. Bryan Singer does his best to tell the story, considering the comparatively weak script for an experimental film like this. This was the first time in YEARS that a superhero film was taken seriously. Given that there had been no introduction to any of the characters prior to this film, it does a really good job to make them interesting. Plus, it establishes the conflict between Eric and Xavier, which have been an integral part of many films that came afterwards. Not to mention, the character introduction, especially that of Wolverine, was incredible. We instantly know the basic characterization given to each of them, which was enough to get behind the movie. Hugh Jackman was the optimal choice for the role of Wolverine, and he proved it for next 17 years. Every single actor have done a good job in their roles. Also, I believe that X-Men films have been the best superhero films when it comes to "social" themes. We get to see the first of many times two friends with different world views clashing with one another. It has grown incredibly stale now, but was great to see back then and some other films after this, especially First Class and DoFP. The mutants wanting to be accepted by humans, and the other mutants wanting to destroy mankind - what other superhero series have given such a theme, or a similar one? This movie is the reason we are getting films like Infinity War, Civil War, Endgame, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. While I prefer these over the first X-Men movie, if it didn't bring the genre back on track, we would've never gotten such films.

Mixed : It feels dated. Had it been made today, it would've been a lackluster. It was clear that they were trying to experiment with this movie and still figuring out how to get things right. While they got most of the things right, they could've made the story a little more complex.

Bad : The story is quite a bit of a throwaway story. While there's an interesting twist, it still feels like the movie becomes a little goofy and cartoony after that twist. Some moments feel like they were shoehorned just to give some "comic accuracy", but they didn't feel justified. I believe that if you get the basic elements right, it doesn't matter if it's not deadly accurate with the comics. But if you want it to be so, make some baseline for that. Don't do it randomly.

Conclusion : It's a movie that set the genre back on track forever. While the story and script might feel a little lazy when viewed today, you can see that the execution of the ideas were as good as humanly possible. If you are a superhero movie fan, it's a must watch. Not because it's insanely great, but just as a reminder of what led us to where we are. I am a huge fan of the genre. All credits go to Nolan's Batman films, the good X-Men films and Raimi's first two Spider-Man films. I absolutely love the MCU and many DC films apart from Nolan's trilogy - Man of Steel, Wonder Woman, Shazam, The Dark Knight Returns, Superman/Doomsday, etc. But for me, like for the genre, it all started with the first X-Men movie. So, I have a very special place for this in my heart, as a fan.

Rating.

Score : 8/10

Grade : A-

Smart, stylish, and very cool

[alafolle · 8/10 · 16 August 2000]

"X-Men" is a rare treat-- a blockbuster that lives up to its hype and a comic book adaptation that hits the mark.

Along with Tim Burton's "Batman", this stands head and shoulders above all other superhero movies. It's a genre that's usually synonymous with silly, campy, cartoonish crap, but Bryan Singer delivers a long-awaited exception to the rule. "X-Men" is smart, stylish, and very cool... one of the better sci fi/fantasy films of the last decade.

Of course, it helps to have good source material.

The X-Men comics, which originated in the 1960s, are more politically progressive and morally complex than older superhero stories such as "Superman" where the heroes are always right, and truth, justice, and the American Way always prevail. The series is a well-crafted parable about individuality and discrimination. The characters are mutants--struggling to find a place in a society that rejects them. Its primary villain, Magneto, isn't an evil lunatic-- he's a sympathetic character, a misguided revolutionary playing Huey Newton to Professor Xavier's Martin Luther King. The iconic character, Wolverine, is a beer-swilling anti-hero who cares little for ideals and fights only to protect himself and his loved ones. The female characters are as powerful and important as the men, rather than being mere love interests.

Rather than making just another flashy explosion-per-minute-special-effects-extravaganza, Singer practices the lost arts of character and plot development. As a result, the movie has a far greater depth than the average big budget summer flick. The acting is also quite good on the whole. Hugh Jackman, who plays Wolverine, is fantastic--a bona fide Clint Eastwood caliber badass. Some of the dialogue is fairly cheesy, but in the hands of Ian McKellan and Patrick Stewart it sounds quite convincing. (Stewart has made a career out of making lame dialogue sound cool.)

Hard-core fans of the comics have complained about the omission of several popular X-Men. This is silly. A movie that gave the background on every character in the comic books would be 6 hours long. There will be plenty of time to develop new characters in the forthcoming sequels. Fans have also complained about the casting of Anna Paquin as Rogue. I disagree. Rogue is unable to touch another human being without harming them--she would not realistically act like a confident, sassy warrior. Paquin did a tremendous job of conveying the fear and isolation that such a young woman would feel. She will undoubtedly grow into the part in future movies.

In the end, "X-Men" is a comic book movie. Superpowers are explained with silly pseudoscientific babble, the plot revolves around a fairly ridiculous take-over-the-world scheme, and names like "Magneto" are spoken with a straight face. Don't read all the glowing reviews and expect Citizen Kane. But don't underestimate "X-Men" either. It is an intelligent movie that people will enjoy whether or not they are familiar with the comic.

X-ellent entertainment!

[MinorityReporter · 7/10 · 11 December 2005]

If this film had been given to the wrong director it could have been incredibly cheesy. Being a reader of the comics I know that there are a few things that works on the page of a comic book but not in a film and let me say that the costumes is one of these things that in all probability wouldn't work. Singer chose to go with black leather outfits and I, for one, am very thankful for this choice. There are many things in this film that works but unfortunately there are a few things as well that prevent the film from being truly great.

Lets start with the things that work. Acting wise the film is very good. This is above all attributed to some excellent casting. Hugh Jackman is simply perfect as Wolverine and brings out the duality of the character in a very satisfactory manner. Also the scenes were we see a glimpse of the rage in the character work remarkably well. The only thing that could be said about him is that he is too tall but it seems most people, including myself, have accepted this fact. I think also that it was a wise choice to let a relatively unknown actor play the part because in that way we have no preconceived notions about him. As for Professor X no other man than Patrick Stewart could/should play him. Stewart simply becomes Xavier both in presence, voice and looks. An example of perfect casting. Ian McKellen is brilliant as Magneto and succeeds in creating a human villain rather than the usual cliché like villains we see in Hollywood productions. The acting aside from the ones mentioned above is pretty good. Not spectacular but good. The only one who does not look and act like the character we know from the comics is Anna Paquin who plays Rogue. The character is nothing like in the comics and Paquin's performance doesn't help the character.

When it comes to music and sound effects in general the film is a notch above average. The musical score has a very grand, even epic, feel to it and this suits the film very well. The score is not as memorable as the score from Batman (1989) but it is very adequate. As for the general sound effects they are both very fitting and believable adding to the overall credibility of the film which is considerable. The sound Wolverine's claws make when they come out is exactly as I imagined it. Very well done. The effects in general are also very well made. Not as good as in Spider-Man but still very good. A lot of care has been taken to make the effects seem as believable as possible and from where I'm standing they work. The only character whose powers I did not fully believe in was Toad's. Ray Park is an excellent athlete but many of his stunts look like obvious wire work. This is a pretty general complaint I have as some of the action look rehearsed. There is, however, some interesting action scenes and overall the action is acceptable.

The story is pretty well written and the dialog is both witty and sharp. Especially much of the dialog between Wolverine and Cyclops (James Marsden) is very entertaining and true to the comic books. Where I feel the story is lacking is in the climax which I am afraid to say is a little silly. Magneto's plan for world domination is actually pretty stupid when you think about it and that is a shame because much of the exposition is very well done. Generally, however, the first film is all about setting the stage for the films to come and it does do that in a satisfactory manner.

All in all X-Men is definitely one of the better super hero movies out there and although it was surpassed by the sequel it still stands as a true testament to Singer's skill.

8/10

intelligent and significant

[Crave · 15 July 2000]

With so many movies out right now that are designed solely for entertainment puposes--from "Gone in 60 seconds" to "MI-2" to "Scary Movie"--it is promising to sit through a 90-minute film based on a comic-book that actually gives you an opportunity to think and be challenged.

Bryan Singer's "X-men: The Movie" is nothing more than an introduction to the lives of the characters from the comic book. The very fact that his movie doesn't try to add new elements, or change elements that already existed within the comic, is what makes it so successful.

X-men the comic series has been around for more than 30 years. And for good reason. It has dealt with all of the important elements that good storytelling includes--rejection, loneliness, hope, fear, distrust, love, selfishness, power, and the price you pay for doing what you believe is right. By consistently exploring various difficult elements of humanity, the X-men comic has been able to be not only entertaining but stimulating as well.

Thankfully, Singer's movie translation is no exception. "X-men" is very well executed, with excellent character work for the leads (Logan, Rogue, Magneto and Xavier), a good exploration of the motives of each character, and dialogue that is sharp and intelligent. However, lest you think X-men is only intellectual, let me assure you that the special-effects department has done an incredible job of mingling the human elements of the story with action. From Wolverine's claws to Rogue's devasating touch, from Storm's namesake displays of nature to Magneto's awesome power, "X-men" constantly finds new and arresting ways of showing-off each mutants power. And the closer you get to the end, the more exciting it is.

True, the movie was not perfect. Certain story elements were modified slightly for big-screen adaptation (nothing, however, that is disloyal to the ethic of the series). The soundtrack was only sufficient, rather than being something truly memorable. And not all of the characters were given equal time on screen (some important characters were completely missing).

But for a 90 minute movie that needs an action plot, it's obviously impossible to give all the X-men (and their evil counterparts) equal attention or character development. In fact, the sheer scale of the series alone all but requires a sequel to flesh out what was missing in this first, "Intro to X-men" movie.

Yet, as a beginning exploration of the "X-men" universe, this movie shines. It is attractive, fun and meaningful. Whether you're an X-men fan, you're looking for something that will make you think, you want an action movie, you enjoy sci-fi, or you just want to leave the theater feeling like you didn't just waste a couple of hours and seven bucks, go see Bryan Singer's "X-men." You won't be disappointed.

A satisfying piece of light entertainment

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 6 December 2016]

Here's a cinematic rarity: a comic strip getting a successful big screen treatment. It doesn't happen very often, but we're finally at the stage of CGI technology to actually make an effects-intensive movie like this work, and look "right". This is a film never designed to win any awards for the script, direction, or acting abilities, yet instead appeal to the crowds as a fun, exciting way to spend one hundred minutes of your life. And with a film like this, the biggest impact comes watching it on the big screen. I've never been a fan of the X-Men comics or television series myself, which is why I was surprised about enjoying this film. The characters are clear cut, easy to identify with and, most of all, extremely cool. For a blockbuster film like this it's rare to find characterisation, but (gasp) it does occur here, chiefly with the character of Wolverine, who is given most screen time. Hugh Jackman is excellent in the role, bringing the right balance of instability, anger, love, and honour to his character, and he's also very charismatic as well. And that's not mentioning the great big bloody spike things which frequently shoot out of his knuckles.

The rest of the X-Men are familiar, yet due to there being so many of them, are given little or nothing to do. Storm gets to partake in some spectacular hell-raising moments yet that's it. Patrick Stewart is on hand as the wise mentor Professor Charles Xavier, yet is also given little to do aside from roll around in his wheelchair and lapse into unconsciousness at important moments. Anna Paquin puts in a good, heartfelt performance as the shunned Rogue, unable to come into skin contact with another living soul, and we do feel for her situation, but she's the only one. Cyclops has great x-ray vision, but when he's got his glasses on, he's forgettable.

The bad guys are a mixed bunch and seemingly possess little in the way of intelligence. And, there's only four of them. Sabretooth is a big, hairy and powerful guy, yet just seems like a bigger, inferior version of Wolverine. Ian McKellen, as Magneto, seems a somewhat lame leading bad guy, and the decision to make him a three-dimensional and human villain takes away some of the impact of his character. And the sight of him floating around in a cape is guaranteed to raise the odd chuckle. Mystique is visually arresting as the blue-skinned shape shifter, but most of her tricks have been stolen from the liquid metal man in TERMINATOR 2 and countless "body snatcher" films. Finally, Ray Park (better known as the actor under the makeup playing Darth Maul in THE PHANTOM MENACE) is a delight as the purely evil Toad, with a whopping great tongue and the ability to jump about all over the place.

For those expecting action, there is actually not that much, aside from the predictable ending. One standout moment has chaos reigning at a train station, but little else in the way of fighting occurs. As this is a 12 certificate film, we never actually see any on screen deaths occur, and there's hardly any blood or impact to the violence either - here, it's unfortunately glamorised. Wolverine's claws are used to impale only a few people (who survive), which is a bit of a cheat. But the biggest cheat of all is the film's cop-out ending, predictably paving the way for a sequel, which leaves most of the bad guys alive and the fate of the others unknown.

This film is definitely worth watching for the special effects alone, as they easily surpass the overdone nature of the ones in something like THE PHANTOM MENACE. They're also almost constantly on screen, and most effective when they occur in "normal" situations when you don't expect them. My particular favourite was when one unfortunate man dissolved into water, or a moment where one character squeezes between cell bars and has his eyes bulge out alarmingly. And then there's all manner of comic-book explosions, lightning, lasers, and big clouds of vaguely threatening white stuff (no, I have no idea what it was supposed to be either). The only complaints come from the occasionally poor editing and the open-endedness of the finale. Otherwise this is well worth a watch and a nice, satisfying piece of light entertainment.

Not a "Comic-book Movie"

[infinitesc · 10/10 · 18 July 2000]

There's no doubt about it, X-Men is not a stereotypical "comic-book film". Whenever a movie is made that is based on comic books, there is always a fear that it can and will be typically pigeonholed into the "comic book film" genre and that the movie is basically made for the fans of that comic book. Comic-book films are usually unrealistic and unappealing to the general audience.

Bryan Singer, however, did a wonderful job at making X-Men a movie that will not only overjoy the fans of the comic book, but also the general movie-goer as well. The movie is grounded, without the flighty unrealism of comic book material, and it delivers a message about prejudice that has always been what X-Men were about: fighting for a world that hates them.

The performances are outstanding, especially Hugh Jackman who, in my opinion, did a dead-on Wolverine, and Patrick Stewart, who never failed to show the peace and self-control that Professor Charles Xavier always strove to maintain.

Aside the characters, the plot was original (I couldn't tell you what was going to happen in the end by the middle of the movie) and most importantly: the world was REAL. The only suspension of disbelief that is required is the assumption that these genetic mutations can happen, and did, causing these extraordinary people. Honestly, I was a little disappointed that the colorful high-flare costumes were omitted, but I instantly forgave Singer when I realized why. It was simply to add to the realism.

All in all, X-Men was excellent. If you're a fan of the comic book series as I was, then you'll endlessly enjoy seeing these characters come to life. And if you've never been exposed to the comic book, this movie will give you an entertaining way to be exposed to its message about fear, hatred, and prejudice.

A solid start to the X-Men film franchise

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 23 July 2014]

Not one of the best Superhero films but a long way from one of the worst. While with imperfections and better was to follow in the franchise, X-Men is a good film and a solid start though with a yet-to-properly-find-its-feet feel. X-Men is well-made, the special effects while not mind-blowing are great, the film was slickly shot and edited and the dark, moody visual style worked wonders. Michael Kamen's music score had those grand, mysterious, rousing and haunting qualities that really add a lot to the film's atmosphere. Apart from the odd cheesy moment the dialogue is smart and taut with some subtle humour that thankfully did not feel out of place, and Bryan Singer shows that he does know how to direct an action sequence, tell a good story and not let the special effects overwhelm everything, a solid directing job indeed. The story, while simple compared to what was to follow in the succeeding films, is compelling and doesn't try and take itself too seriously or like a joke. The character exposition was nicely done on the whole and doesn't drag things down too much, Cyclops, Storm and Toad are underdeveloped but Wolverine and especially Magneto(who actually has depth to him rather than being a clichéd villain) are interesting characters. The relationships between the characters were also believable, Wolverine and Rogue's was a standout. And the story didn't feel like it was second fiddle to the action sequences, which weren't big and bold as such but were tightly choreographed and performed with spirit and passion. Admittedly though the Statue of Liberty climax while strikingly filmed is on the silly side at times, but it was fun too. The cast are mostly very good, apart from a stiff James Marsden(he and Famke Janssen's chemistry was very bland), a monotone Tyler Mane and Halle Berry and Ray Park also felt a bit bland. Hugh Jackman however shows great charisma as the lead character Wolverine and has a powerful screen presence, Rebecca Romijin-Stamos is a sexy and icy Mystique, Anna Paquin did bring a feistiness to Rogue and Famke Janssen is fine. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen promise much on paper, and both of them deliver, Stewart brings a cool, classy command to the screen as Professor X but even better is McKellen, who is certainly menacing but gives Magneto a sympathetic edge. To conclude, a good film and a solid start to the franchise. 7/10 Bethany Cox

X-cellent!

[odradek-4 · 10/10 · 13 July 2000]

A tale of super-evolved mutants in a struggle against human oppressors, X-Men is an instant sci-fi classic, combining impressive special effects with an involving plot to create a truly memorable cinematic experience.

Lacking the tongue-in-cheek camp of the later Batman films and other recent comic books-turned movies, X-Men draws the audience into its world of mutants and superpowers, and prevents it from becoming tacky or absurd. Not to say that there isn't any humour in the film, in fact it delivers some of the best one liners in a film this year.

It is a rare thing for an action blockbuster to feature great acting, but with a cast that among others involves both Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen is bound to be above average. Both Stewart (as Professor Charles Xavier) and McKellen (as Magneto)deliver stellar performances, and their onscreen chemistry is compelling as they play two old friends turned arch enemies.

The rest of the cast deliver solid performances, including Hollywood newcomer Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, Oscar-winner Anna Paquin as Rogue, and another rising star Rebecca Romijn-Stamos as the seductive but deadly Mystique.

A classic tale of good versus evil, with heroes, baddies, and great special effects, I don't think it's going too far to say that X-Men is destined to be mentioned in the same breath as Star Wars and other all-time sci-fi greats.

FIRST

[KeremUlucay · 7/10 · 18 June 2019]

X-Men is first superhero team movie in history. Also it is Marvel's first movie with a high budget. Movie is amazing about storytelling, especially in first one hour. I really liked the world they created. But then it becomes a bit meaningless and complicated. CGI's are good for 2000. Actors and actresses are awesome with their roles, every one of them. This film have some surprising scenes, especially with Mistique. Bryan Singer made a good job at all.

Can your comic heros really come to life?

[cherry2x · 9/10 · 29 November 2000]

The answer to that question can be found in this movie with a resounding YES. Being a fan of X-Men comics and cartoons, I watched this movie with great skepticism. It was wonderful how the characters remained true to the comics.

The special powers that our mutant heros and villains possess are displayed exceptionally. It made me wish that I could have a special power of my own.

Enough can not be said of the phenomenal cast of actors that were selected for their roles. Not only did they fit their parts perfectly, but they made you believe. Bravo to Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Ian McKellen and a host of actors who were lucky enough to take part in this adventure.

Bryan Singer does a fantastic job of bringing it all together. The special effects in this movie, only enhance the great script and acting. After seeing the DVD with the outtakes, the editing was quite effective.

The true battle of good versus evil can always make for a great story but when a comic book is adapted to film and you feel that what you see is really possible, it is a true stroke of genius.

Mutants, Puns, Action

[brandinscottlindsey · 6/10 · 16 July 2017]

X-Men is a 2000 film based on Marvel's X-Men comic book series. The plot follows a drifter named Wolverine, played by Hugh Jackman, who is soon introduced to a young woman, nicknamed Rogue. Wolverine quickly realizes why the girl wants to stay with him: they are both mutants, or people who are born with supernatural abilities. The misfit duo's genes soon bring them in the middle of a clash between two organized mutant groups: Charles Xavier, played by Patrick Stewart, and his mutant X-Men against Magneto, played by Ian McKellen, and his Brotherhood of Mutants. Action and heroism follow that lead to an epic battle of mutant against mutant.

The film takes many liberties from the comic books, but it seems to work well in this setting. The movie has all the action and fun you'd expect from the X-Men, including a smug Cyclops, the rebellious and awesome Wolverine, and an interesting cast choice of Halle Berry as Storm. The special effects are good, the movie keeps an exciting pace, and the story is interesting.

The problems with this movie mainly consist with the poor dialogue. This is the part of a comic book movie that needs to be the least like a comic book. Corny one-liners, puns, and melodramatic dialogue take away from the seriousness established in the conflict. Some of the fighting scenes are a little silly, especially the ones including the shape-shifting mutant, Mystique. My final complaint, which I make in hesitation, was the way some of the plot devices were handled. I cannot elaborate too much on this without giving anything away, but one example I can make is the villain's cliché "doomsday" weapon. Where did it come from? How does it work? It's just there to be there, to be the conflict and the problem that has to be addressed.

Despite these flaws, the film is still entertaining and enjoyable. Action-packed and full of your favorite characters from the comics, this movie is mostly for the fans. Outsiders are in for a corny ride that the action may not justify.

A lot better than expected.

[Animany94 · 8/10 · 11 June 2019]

After watching a lot of animated X-Men stuff, I thought that it was time to watch some live-action movies. I'd heard rumours that the X-Men franchise was rather hit and miss. Well, this was a very solid start.

Not everyone delivers a top performance, but I was so happy that my favorite characters delivered. Hugh Jackman does a relly good and charismatic job as the tough Wolverine coming from a place he doesn't even know himself. He ends up meeting Marie aka Rogue who brings him to Xavier's School for the Gifted. Their relationship is a highlight here.

Magneto gets a lot of star power from the magnificent Ian McKellen and a well done take on his harsh past which leads him onto his dark path in life conflicting with his old friend Xavier who are also given a nice portrayal by Patrick Stuart.

The otherwise talented Halle Berry wasn't as convincing as Storm, I must admit. The booming persona I knew was shifted to a quite monotonous one, and her powers weren't to show before nearing the climax. James Marsden was a good choice as Cyclops, but was kind of the same case as Storm without real punch to the performance.

But despite a few small bumps on the road, I enjoyed X-Men more than I had expected, because the story was actually really engaging when the focus was on the right elements like Wolverine and Rogue and how Magneto fulfills his plan. It's not the usual superhero movie where action and special effects are the main focus, but more like a psychological drama with some hero elements. That makes it stand out among the crowd.

But even though the special effects weren't the main focus they were awesome, hands down! It may be a movie from the year 2000, but back then the effects weren't used as much as they are today, so when they were good they really rocked the screen.

I would recommend X-Men to people who like a well balanced movie with a well told story spiced up with the right amount of action and special effects.

Quite good

[ForTheMostPart1999 · 7/10 · 8 November 2022]

A neat start to what I hear is a pretty popular Marvel series. It was a pretty straight forward action packed flick that featured some neat effects for it's fairly early time it hit theaters. Stuart, McKellen, Jackman and the rest of the bold crew were all portrayed as rare mutants that walk amongst society. A pretty straight-forward storyline throughout the film as the team of mutants known as X-Men try to protect and rescue one of their newer and younger ones from "the dark side" of mutants, with one of the helpers being a new member of the X-men as well. This saga introduction shall continue.

Execrably bad

[RJC-4 · 1/10 · 16 July 2000]

Was "The Usual Suspects" a fluke? Bryan Singer turns in a decidedly B-movie job directing this flat, predictable comics adaptation. It's almost too faithful to its original medium, with 2-d performances from all the principals except for Hugh Jackman (as the grouchy Wolverine, he displays the closest thing to personality among these cardboard cut-outs). Patrick Stewart is lifeless. Ian McKellen, who was believably dark in Singer's "Apt Pupil," here only looks very drowsy. And the X-Men themselves look like the cast of "Dawson's Creek" in drag.

This film has endless problems. The action sequences, and in particular the climactic battle in and on the Statue of Liberty, look terribly staged: just as on the comics page, the characters halt to strike dramatic poses, or dotingly brandish their "super powers" (one of them, hilariously, even utters at one point: "Storm, use your power!"). It simply doesn't work any more than if Singer had put speech bubbles above the characters' heads. Compare these silly little fights to the superb sequences in Jet Li's "Black Mask," (1996), a film shot for a fraction of this one's budget but obviously with much greater talent and vision.

For a comic with a rich graphical past, the movie's art direction delivers a strangely bland, sterile look, both for Professor X's school and for the Liberty set. Both look low-budget, but neither is quite as bad as the villain's secret seaside hideout, which Singer shot in such darkness that nary a detail can be seen.

Oddly, "X-Men" looks like two different movies. The first 15 minutes are lavishly designed and shot, from the opening flashback of Jews herded into a concentration camp to the discovery of a Wolverine slumming in a moody northern logging camp. Then, abruptly, the flair is gone, and for the remaining 90 minutes we get a film that looks like one of the Star Trek TV franchise vehicles. (Except for Storm's look: it's pure Penthouse Magazine, ca. 1975, with Halle Barry's vapid expression rounding out the bill.) The villains are half-comically done, but even that is a blunder by Singer -- we don't really get any comic relief from them, and we can hardly worry too much about the X-men if they're beset by the likes of a villain called Toad, and even less when they remind us of the far wittier and better-looking send-up of all this nonsense, last year's "Mystery Men."

Apart from the inanities, there is also a true sin: it's unforgivably trite when a pulp fiction like this one hijacks the Holocaust to inflate its meagre storyline and insincere theme. "X-Men" isn't really an allegory of genocide, or even merely of racism. That stuff is just tacked on to what is really an exercise in big fights and big boobs -- the old Marvel formula. Fights and boobs aren't bad in their own right, but they're done much better elsewhere without the pretensions to social justice.

Lee and Kirby's Finest Creation Comes to Life...

[Chiron1987 · 17 July 2000]

The film version of Stan Lee and Jack "The King" Kirby's best-selling comic book creation, X-Men, has finally succeeded where more than twenty years of four-color, superhero movies have failed. They have finally got it right...

It is a stunning cinematic experience, faithfully adapting nearly 40 years of continuity into a stream-lined, fast-paced, wonderfully exciting trip into the legendary Marvel Universe. X-Men features incredible portrayals of much of the classic mutant cast, especially virtual unknown (at least here in the States) Hugh Jackman as Logan, the Canadian wildman we all know and love as Wolverine. Jackman seems born to play this coveted role with every bit of gruff and grim gusto; his Wolverine looks as if he simply stepped off one of Chris Claremont and John Byrne's exquisitely crafted pages. The rest of the cast was also pleasantly well-casted and well-suited for their roles, including the handsomely chisled James Marsden as the stoic field commander Cyclops and the gorgeous Anna Paquin as the can-never-touch-but-wish-we-all-could Rogue. Famke Janssen and Halle Berry are beautiful and bold as Jean Grey and Storm, respectively, not just appearing as fleeting shards of eye candy, but actually adding depth and strength to the flow of the film. Patrick Stewart's excellent Professor Charles Xavier is in fine Stewart fashion, extrapolating on his Jean-Luc Picard character, and adding genuine compassion and warmth.

Ian McKellan is superb as the tortured master of magnetism, Magneto, playing the part with malicious glee, tempered with an extreme form of jingoism for his cause of the militant uprising of mutants over "normal" people. His Brotherhood of (Evil) Mutants is composed of Sabretooth, viciously and animalistically portrayed Tyler Mane, The Phanton Menace's Ray Park is the wickedly amusing Toad, and the stunning Rebecca Romaijn-Stamos is the shape-shifter Mystique. Park actually had the most to say of Magneto's henchmen, but it was appropriate as these three comprise an awesomely evil team of muscle and not philosophy like their leader.

The productions values were spectacular, as were the settings, taking us from a stark, malign concentration camp in Poland to the wilds of the Canadian north to the serenity of Westchester, New York to a mind-bending climax on Liberty Island. The action sequences were well-paced and action-packed, and much more smoother and better choreographed than any of the Batman films. The special effects, especially Wolverine's legendary adamantium claws, were truly awe-inspiring.

X-Men was meticulously directed by Bryan Singer, who along with 20th Century Fox, actually listened to and cared about what X-Fans thought and wished to see on screen. Although we would have all liked to have stayed in that theater for another 95 minutes, there are many more stories to tell, and God willing, Fox will let it happen.

Most importantly, X-Men finally gives Marvel Entertainment Group a firm footing on film, a foundation that was never fully in its grasp until the surprise hit of two years ago, Blade. Now that Marvel has discovered that it can succeed with its top-tier characters, the sky is truly the limit for its varied cast of great characters. I hope that Warner Bros. will sit up and take notice at what X-Men has accomplished. Maybe this will be a wake-up call to those studio executives in charge of Superman and Batman, and make them realize that the fans' input really does count in the end...

Highest recommendation!

Good, not great, but good

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 26 July 2000]

I thought this film couldve been a little more developed (even for a assumed prequel) considering the circumstances of it being a movie based on one of the best comic books ever. Still, there are many things to like in this film. The action, the characters, the visual and special fx and someother things. It is a must see, but fans of the comic book might be a little confused of the characters being kinda young (Rogue in this film is a teen and in the comic book series she is an adult) and being under-developed. Note- look for Ray Park (Darth Maul) as Toad. A-

A BEAUTIFUL START

[alcantaraj-16594 · 8/10 · 31 March 2019]

Though "X-Men" starts slowly, the slow buildup and great payoff proved that this film is worthy of the successful franchise it spawned.

Startlingly Fun Movie To Watch

[forrestwrs · 7/10 · 14 September 2010]

X-Men surprised me with its intelligence, marvelous direction, and wonderful characters.

A startlingly fun movie to watch, X-Men is one of the better comic book adaptations out there. In fact, I'd say it was the best one made until Spider-Man came out. Even then, it's a close call. X-Men does really well with balancing the terrific number of characters it features on screen. I think this is the movie's best aspect. It gives us a lot of depth to every character on screen. Including Wolverine, who I was not pleased with when I saw X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It's a little ironic that there was more depth given to Wolverine in a film that was not strictly about Wolverine than the "character study" film did that was supposed to be solely about Wolverine. I started to feel an interesting connection to this character. This is incredibly important because this is the first time I had ever thought much of anything for Wolverine, including in other films, TV shows, and comic books. Excellent development.

I was even more impressed with some of the side characters, like Rogue. Rogue was portrayed beautifully by Anna Paquin. I was unprepared for the level of intensity that this young actress was able to bring to the table with her character. She seemed frail, but independent. Strong and weak at the same time. And there was so much emotional strength given to her that by the time we got to the climactic battle, I was genuinely concerned for her. I also really loved the friendship that was played out between her and Wolverine. It was done extremely well and the two shared some really impressive scenes.

Cyclops, Storm, and Jean Grey were a little underplayed, but I was still satisfied with the level of character development that we still got from them. I was able to take all these characters seriously and I was able to follow each of their own inner struggles in a way that, again, I had not anticipated.

Ian McKellen was yet another surprise for me as Magneto. I had never held much stock in the villain, believing him to be nothing particularly special. And when I saw the old man who was to play him, I couldn't hold back my scoff. But the surprises kept coming through and I couldn't help but love this guy's performance. He plays the villain Magneto very well, giving a powerful and poignant performance. That's nothing to scoff at.

And while I am talking about the actors and characters, I cannot forget Patrick Stewart who played Professor Xavier. I think this was the best performance in the film. Patrick Stewart really brought this character to life, giving the audience an incredibly powerful performance. There was a scene when he was talking to Wolverine and Cyclops and I suddenly realized I was leaning forward in my chair to hang onto every word this guy had to say. A brilliant and underrated performance.

Then there were the incredible visuals in this story. Whether they were all CGI or not I did not know and neither did I care. This film was still made before everything had gone to such gargantuan lengths in the computers and I could tell the effort that was put into the visuals. And they looked really darn good.

But what impressed me still more than anything else about X-Men was the direction. This film was directed by Bryan Singer, and he gives the audience some really intense direction. I was blown away by the cinematography among everything else. Singer is a wonderful director. I haven't seen any of his other films, but I want to now.

X-Men is an entertaining and--above everything else--fun ride that is sure to grasp comic book fans and non-comic book fans alike.

9/10

I gave this film an 8.

[melissa3 · 8/10 · 5 March 2001]

I've always been a fan of the X-Men, since the Animated Series aired (I'd never really read any of the comics though... ^_^). So when I heard they were making a movie about them, I was counting the days until it was released. Maybe that affected how I viewed the movie, but I was a bit disappointed. Director Brian Singer (Usual Suspects) did a good job with what he's got... the multiple characters, etc. The whole project seems a bit "safe," though, as if the producers wanted to make sure this big production didn't flop. It's a good movie, but not a great one. Fans of the X-Men might be especially disappointed if their favorite characters do not include either Wolverine or Rogue. Mine personally is Cyclops, but he had a minor role. James Marsden, who played Cyclops, was a bit on the stiff side, but I forgive him because I like him as an actor. On that note, all the actors did an excellent job, especially Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan, as the forces of good and evil. It brought an endearing humanistic side to a story I had thought was dominated by sci-fi. If you're an X-Men fan, I would definitely recommend this film--but you probably have already seen it! What X-Men fan would miss out? If you're not a fan, maybe this movie can be a starting point for a new obsession... :o)

X the known

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 29 March 2006]

I knew about the "X-Men" graphic novels but never read them. Although I did find the movie fairly interesting, mainly because it shows how Sen. Kelly (Bruce Davison) tries to create a McCarthy-style fear of mutants. I guess that for the most part, this movie is not much different from other superhero movies, but worth seeing as a cultural reference. It was surprising to see Ian McKellen go from "Gods and Monsters" to this. A particularly funny scene is when Cyclops (James Marsden) has to verify Wolverine's (Hugh Jackman) identity. This movie does make one grow to respect mutants.

So why do you ask questions to which you already know the answer?

entertaining special effects masterpiece

[thedotimp · 8/10 · 6 September 2000]

"X-men" is a well done sci-fi action film for all action fans: especially for those who as kids dreamed of having special powers themselves. Each of the main mutant characters has a special ability and during the film I sometimes found myself thinking about which of those abilities I would choose if I were given the chance. Of course all of those special abilities are visible in the film's spectacular special effects. But the special effects were not the only thing that made watching this film fun. There is also plenty of action and character interaction besides shooting and beating and using special powers. As each mutant character is given a past (to give him a motivation) and a weakness, the film's plot never got boring because I also wanted to know how things developed between the mutants themselves.

And I won't even talk about the ending. It actually surprised me. But go see for yourself

X-Men

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 28 August 2019]

I had seen "X-Men" many years ago and thought it was "meh." I recently re-watched it with my kids because I thought they might like the series and liked it more than I did the first time. It feels much less bloated and self-important than so many other superhero movies. I also just think it's cool that each person has his/her own unique abilities, especially when they work together to stop bad guys. Heroes like Batman and Iron Man, as far as I can tell, are only good at beating people up and wouldn't be much if it weren't for all their gadgets and costumes. But all of the X-Men actually have actual powers that set them apart.

And good grief, I think Hugh Jackman is sort of silly most of the time, but can I please look like him as I get older? Dude is ripped.

Grade: B

A Very Good Introduction, but you do feel that something is missing

[jezre_17 · 8/10 · 30 November 2006]

It is a great challenge to make the first episode of a superhero series, why? You have the pressure of making it believable, entertaining, dramatic, exciting, you know what...

Bryan Singer, hands down, he is a great director, x-men is a hit, and without the action sequences you would expect from a movie of this kind, he keeps your full attention, but not for long enough.

The minutes fly by and suddenly you will find yourself hoping for something exciting to happen, and it will, but by that the movie has reached almost its conclusion.

Good thing that there is a sequel, that it works very good thanks to this first act, not a bad thing, right??? 8 out of 10.

x men

[marmar-69780 · 7/10 · 26 December 2019]

X men was a good start for franchise that started many films including good and bad,first x men was a well made film who intruduced many characters in good path ,and building them up as movie was going and showing their development and personalities,most of cast was basiacly born to play some roles,jackman as wolverine,stewart as xavier and mckellen as magneto did great job,but some minor characters were for me underpowered like storm and jean grey and they felt like being on sidelines also cyclopes didnt impress me and he was weakest part since he was like nothing compared to comics,x men for a first film satisfayed me in a good way in end

What is everyone talking about?

[jrc0013 · 1/10 · 27 July 2000]

How is this a good movie? Maybe if you were into the comic books, a movie of it would seem like a cool thing, and then you just don't want to admit that the movie is pretty bad. It was not an engaging story at all after they left Poland in the beginning. You kept expecting something that would to grab your attention, but it never came. The ending was pretty lame, and it seemed like the last 3rd of the movie was just setting up for the sequel. I never really understood what the story was. I was expecting much better things. Too bad for Bryan Singer after doing two very good movies (or at least one very good, then one not-quite-as-good)