Film Festival

Review: 'X-Men: First Class' redefines the most important superhero franchise with style

A strong emphasis on character and content marks a new beginning

Review: 'X-Men: First Class' redefines the most important superhero franchise with style

Michael Fassbender does exceptional work as Erik, aka Magneto, in 'X-Men: First Class'

Credit: 20th Century Fox

Because I've already offered up my first impressions of "X-Men: First Class," the only way to write a proper review of it is to actually dig into the text of the film.  That could mean spoilers.  If you want the short version of my thoughts on the film, you can read that here, and you can walk into the movie fairly fresh.  If you're reading this review, you want a real discussion about this smart and stylish redefinition of the franchise that kicked off the modern superhero movie.

Happy to oblige.

"X-Men" in 2000 was a very important moment for the genre.  It introduced some characters and imagery that were stranger and more outrageous than anything in "Superman" or "Batman" or any earlier comic-to-movie transition.  Cyclops.  Storm.  Wolverine.  Jean Grey.  Cerebro.  Magneto.  Mystique.  And while the film gets some things right and some things wrong, it's got a great energy to it.  And Bryan Singer in '99 was just the right choice.  A strange choice at first.  But he made an authentic movie about being an outsider, told through a genre prism.  It felt like, underneath all the swagger and special effects, something real was happening.  Something that mattered.  "X-Men" worked just well enough.  They short-changed that first film out of fear.  The studio really struggled with the producers on that first film, the sort of tension on a movie that, in this case, paid off with something that did not feel cookie-cutter, something that didn't feel like a safe bet.  They got outrageously lucky with the casting of Hugh Jackman, and vice-versa.  He made the character click with audiences, and once they loved Wolverine, they were onboard for the rest of the ride.

Another key to the success of that first film was the chemistry between Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen.  Not only did both actors bring weight and class to their roles, but they were able to suggest a real friendship beneath their rivalry, a sort of curdled affection.  Stewart and McKellen are pretty much as classy as it gets, and the idea of recasting the roles younger is a tricky one.  Get it wrong, and you're screwing up one of the best things about the series.  Thankfully, hiring James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender turned out to be one of the smartest things this series has done, because they've not only perfectly captured the characters in those earlier days, but they've also given the characters new, more dangerous edges.  It's exciting because it suggests new opportunities for the series, something that is not the norm with prequels.

Normally, I would argue that that moving backward in time is a narrative dead end, and there are very few prequels you can point at that would disprove my point.  It's odd, since one of the first megasequels was "The Godfather Part II," a movie that used that past to illuminate the present in some fascinating ways.  Hollywood seems to have picked up the "backwards in time" part, but not the reasons that was so effective, and as a result, we've seen a lot of terrible prequels over the years.  I even hate that word.  Even so, I find myself not just enthusiastic about this newest "X-Men" film, but slightly rabid.  Part of what I love here is how the move into the past has allowed them to weave an alternate history that plays off of real-world events we all know, making mutants an important part of our world even if we didn't realize it.  I was afraid the move to the '60s would be pure fetish, and that's certainly part of it.  It's impossible to watch this movie without realizing just how much Matthew Vaughn loves the original Connery Bond films, but there's more to it than that.  He's given an urgency to the events of the film that we can all understand, and he's managed to do something that movies like this often are unable to do:  he's made it feel like the safety of the entire world hangs on the actions of these characters, and like they are the only ones capable of doing something about it.

Want More...

X-Men: First Class?
  • Xmenfirstclass1_thumbnail
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.
Superheroics are one thing, but without strong character work, these films don't work.  There are so many relationships here that click, but a few of them really hold the film together.  In particular, the bond between Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) and Charles (McAvoy) is so strong here, so well-etched, that it automatically makes the first two films feel sadder in hindsight.  When you see the way Charles reached out to this damaged girl, took her in, gave her a home, you see his philosophy in practice.  He believes that mutants are exceptional, and when he looks at Raven, he sees a glorious future.  He sees potential in her, and in their type in general.  They grow up together, and they are the beginning of Charles's dream of an extended mutant family.  By the time Raven finally chooses a different path than him at the end of the film, it's really sort of heartbreaking.  It's understandable, and neither of them comes across as wrong, which is a remarkable bit of writing to pull off.  The series has always been somewhat on the nose in the use of its central metaphor, and Jennifer Lawrence proclaiming "mutant and proud" is hardly subtle, but that's fine.  Anyone who feels different can find themselves in the film, and the way the film wrestles with notions of blending into society at large is something people still deal with on a regular basis.

Even before the film puts Erik (Fassbender) and Charles together, it puts them on a collision course, and that might be my favorite stretch of the film.  Erik, who spent time in a concentration camp as a child, has spent his life preparing to track down the Nazis who took his family from him so he can kill them all.  He is a weapon, and little else.  There's no inner life to Erik because some essential piece of him died in a room where Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) executed his mother in front of him.  All that is left is hatred and vengeance and power.  Charles, on the other hand, is recruited by a branch of the CIA, along with Raven, and the two of them start to work towards a wide-scale acceptance of what they are and what they can do.  Watching Erik move from target to target, getting closer to Shaw with each step, while Charles moves through his world, enjoying himself, you can see the seeds of why they each feel the way they do.  They don't just pick arbitrary positions on the argument.  They are who they are made to be.  And when they finally meet, it's a breathtaking sequence, marvelously staged, emotional and thrilling and the perfect kick-off to the rest of the movie.

Speaking of Sebastian Shaw and Kevin Bacon, I loved the way they used him in the film.  The way they reveal his power is very clever and held until just the right dramatic moment, and it's a really tough thing to visualize, so I give them credit for handling it right.  More than his ability to absorb energy, though, I love the world that Shaw travels in, the casual decadence.  He's like a Bond villain who has finally grown tired of the sex clubs and the volcano hideouts, and he's ready to crank it up and reshape the world for his own entertainment.  He sounds like Magneto when you listen to his philosophy, but he's much darker at heart than McKellen was in the first three films.  He's not looking to rule mankind, he's looking to end them.  I wish Emma Frost (January Jones) was used as more than just eye candy in the film, but there's only so much screen time in the film, and if she's the character they shortchanged, so be it.

There are other characters who don't have much screen time but who make stronger impressions, like Oliver Platt as the guy who takes a chance and brings Charles in, or Rose Byrne as Moira McTaggert, charged to handle Charles and Raven in the field.  Byrne's having a pretty great year, between this and "Insidious" and "Bridesmaids," and I like the way they set Moira up here for the series moving forward.  Still, all of this is preamble to the actual "first class" of the title, and if the kids didn't work, I think the film would have a hole in it that would be impossible to ignore.  Frankly, they made me more nervous than anything in the film before seeing it, but they are all well-cast and well-written.  Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), Alex Summers (Lucas Till), Sean Cassidy (Caleb Landry Jones), Armando Munoz (Edi Gathegi), and Angel Salvadore (Zoe Kravitz) are all engaging and they have a great easy chemistry as they are all brought together by Charles and Erik.  That section of the film, where they first use Cerebro and start to locate and recruit mutants, works very well, and contains one of the film's few explicit nods to the Singer movies.  There are two, and instead of feeling shoehorned in, they both comes as character moments, funny but also pointed and purposeful.

Much of the movie is given over to character rather than action, but there's a propulsive pace to the thing that makes it all feel urgent and important, and in the end, "X-Men: First Class" works simply as storytelling.  It is a nice reminder that you can throw all the high concepts and action choreography and special effects you want at something, but unless you tell a good story, tell it well, and create engaging characters, none of that matters.  "X-Men: First Class" works as stand-alone story, as prequel, as set-up to a new series, and as homage.  It is a minor miracle, and it makes me feel like the franchise, one of the most valuable in Hollywood, is back on the right track.  I hope they drop the "X-Men Origins" brand entirely and simply use this as the point of origin for whatever comes after this.  This is summer moviemaking the way I love it most, smart and bold and splashy and with just enough weight to matter, and I can't wait to see where the series goes next.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup


  • Not to nitpick sir, but I believe X-Men came out in 2000 not 1999.

    May 31, 2011 at 3:18PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Reggie P He wrote 2000. And '99 was when the filming took place... You got confused between the two ;)

      May 31, 2011 at 4:46PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Xfan82 He actually says X-Men came out in 2000 but Singer was the right choice in 99 since that's when he started making it. Not to nitpick

      May 31, 2011 at 5:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      warblecroaker Not to nitpick about the nitpickers, hehe.
      Thanks for the Review at last Drew!

      May 31, 2011 at 5:52PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    SEsterline

    Drew - I appreciate your candid review of the movie and your approval of the character development and chemistry. (I'll likely go see this movie when it comes out, but I can't say that I beleive I'll be seeing it more than once.) All that being said, the way that ALL the X-Men movies have totally ignored ANY of the character chronology from the original comic books borders on the absurd. (For no apparent reason they've turned the X-Men into the biggest smorgasboard on the planet, taking characters who were *ORIGINAL* X-Men and making them into mere students under the tutelage of heroes who were introduced MUCH later.) Wouldn't it be nice if the studios had a little humility and actually listened to the EXPERTS when it comes to such things?

    May 31, 2011 at 3:19PM EST Reply to Comment
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew Honestly? Doesn't bother me. Never did. I think at this point, "smorgasbord" is the perfect definition of what a title like "X-Men" offers when developing films. Adaptation is transformation. Nature of the beast.

      May 31, 2011 at 3:42PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Xfan82 X-Men fans of all fans should understand adaptation. Liberties are taken with any comic series. My only anger centers around the first four movies centered around Wolverine. I get one movie but when he killed the Phoenix I wanted to scream. That story is one of the definitive tales of these heroes and they took away the real meaning behind it. I think this movie is going to be great... If for no other reason it's a break from the claws.

      May 31, 2011 at 5:07PM EST


  • X-Men came out in 2000, not '99.

    May 31, 2011 at 3:20PM EST Reply to Comment
    • I think he was referring to when it was filmed.

      May 31, 2011 at 3:56PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Li Shengshun

    Pretty shitty and long winded review, guy writes like a middle-schooler...

    May 31, 2011 at 3:25PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      mmcb105 let me guess, you live under a bridge.

      May 31, 2011 at 3:53PM EST
    • Wow, middle schoolers are a lot more intelligent nowadays.

      May 31, 2011 at 6:35PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Brendan

    I'm excited for this movie, sure, but I'm not getting to excited, seeing as how so much of the positive press is coming from the same people who lost their minds over Kick-Ass, a movie that simply never delivered the goods. I'm approaching this with cautious optimism, but I've still got concerns over how rushed the production was, and with Vaughn's track record in general.

    May 31, 2011 at 3:28PM EST Reply to Comment
    • This. I'll never trust certain people's opinions on certain filmmakers after the ridiculously over the top fellating of Kick-Ass (and previously, the fellating of Hostel part 2. Yeah, let's not pretend like that didn't happen).

      May 31, 2011 at 8:42PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew This kind of post frustrates me.

      I'm sorry if you didn't enjoy "Kick-Ass," but when you use a word like "fellating," what you're doing is implying that I didn't actually think what I said I did, and that it was simply servicing the filmmaker. Not true. If only people could understand that it is possible to have a difference of opinion about a film without having to be so goddamn nasty about it.

      And I don't know what you mean about "Hostel 2," but I know you're not talking about me.

      June 1, 2011 at 3:27AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Brendan Yikes, sorry Drew, I didn't mean to invite that kind of comment. I was just saying that Kick-Ass disappointed me, and even his movies that I DID like or love have had elements that felt undercooked, so I was hesitant about how much love this one seems to be getting right out of the gate. Definitely no disrespect or anything coming from this dojo.

      June 1, 2011 at 8:26AM EST


  • I wonder how much Dougray Scott hates Hugh Jackman, Tom Cruise and John Woo.

    May 31, 2011 at 3:36PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Dryden It's a great "What if?" I don't see him having nearly as much charisma as Jackman brought to the role. There are other things in the film that worked, but Jackman's star-making performance is what made the film a mainstream hit. Without Jackman, I don't see the film doing as well, meaning the studios get cold feet on comic book movies and the genre doesn't get another shot for twenty years.

      May 31, 2011 at 4:01PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Xfan82 I agree Dougray is pretty pissed right now. I also have to say that anyone could play a role like wolverine. It's easy. He's angry and brooding. They gave him all the good smart ass lines as well as the main focus of the film. I am hoping this movie crushes the previous ones just to prove the X-Men stand on their own. There was a period in the 90s when Logan wasn't even in the X-Men comics. They were still the top sellers even without him.

      May 31, 2011 at 5:17PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      DougMac While i wouldnt be surprised if Scott were somewhat bitter, Jackman simply seized the role and owned it. As for saying anyone could have played Wolverine, you're sort of right. Any actor can do angry and brooding, but Jackman really brought much more to it than that and gave Wolverine more depth and subtle nuances than a lot of other actors would have chosen to do or been able to pull off. Some of that credit probably belongs to Singer's direction too, but Jackman made Wolverine a real character when he could have easily made him into a caricature.

      June 1, 2011 at 2:19AM EST
  • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

    drew

    You are all, of course, correct about the date of "X-Men," and I have corrected it in the piece.

    May 31, 2011 at 3:41PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Tee Hey Drew, wouldn't you say that "Blade" began the new era in super hero films? It wasn't as huge a hit as "X-Men," but it did introduce the modern audience to comic books in a different light.

      May 31, 2011 at 7:02PM EST
    • All_purpose_icon_talkback_profile

      drew I think for comic fans, "Blade" was very important, but it wasn't a mainstream hit, it was rated-R, and I think many audiences had no idea it was based on a comic book. "X-Men" was as comic book as comic book had ever been up to that point onscreen, and its success is what really opened the floodgates at every studio.

      May 31, 2011 at 7:20PM EST
  • Zoidberg_talkback_profile

    mrbilliam

    As with most comic book movies, I would like to ask if I should be sticking around for a scene after the credits.

    May 31, 2011 at 5:07PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Sorry, but no. But the creditsequence is very nice and very 60´s

      June 1, 2011 at 10:09PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Potty Break

    40 years ago this month "Escape From the Planet of the Apes" may have been the first of the modern prequels, going back in time to move the story forward. At the time sequels usually told the same story over or followed a specific character like James Bond. "Godfather 2" is probably the first modern sequel to be respected, and then "Star Wars" started the sequel machine.

    May 31, 2011 at 5:09PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      ushaped It's funny but I've never really thought of the Bond, Apes or Pink Panther films as sequels. But my negative reaction to "sequels" as a concept and as a word began with Jaws 2!

      May 31, 2011 at 8:18PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    John W

    I can't wait to see it. So how many characters is this now from the Marvel universe that have been brought to life on the big screen?

    May 31, 2011 at 5:23PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Brendan

    Every time I see that picture of Fassbender, it looks like he has one hand. Weird.

    June 1, 2011 at 12:46AM EST Reply to Comment


  • For the love of all that is good and holy, let Matthew Vaughn direct a Bond film with Daniel Craig.

    June 1, 2011 at 4:38AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Thurston McQ

    I hear Fassbender gets close to the Nazis by pretending to be one. Once he decides the moment is right, he says, "I'll give you a three-second head start before I blow your brains out." He holds up the wrong three fingers when he says this, of course, so they know he's serious.

    June 1, 2011 at 5:15PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Davi That joke was first class.

      June 1, 2011 at 6:21PM EST
    • Sdlcheadpic_talkback_profile

      LoopyChew Fantastic, fantastic comment.

      June 3, 2011 at 5:42AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Rick Chung

    X-Men: First Class is a sexy, swinging '60s superhero thriller.

    June 4, 2011 at 2:36PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Warren Peace

    Anybody still here? I waited until I saw the movie to read this. Great thoughts Drew, much appreciated. This film shows how tapping into different types of films can reinvigorate a franchise. "You know what X-Men should be like? Old James Bond movies." That seems like a ridiculous comment, but thankfully Vaughn had the courage to think outside the box. That this movie made me completely forget about McKellen/Stewart is the highest praise I can offer. Didn't think that was possible.

    June 4, 2011 at 7:30PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    jabcat

    Why X-Men: First Class Sucks - In Depth Analysis http://bit.ly/kGofWu

    June 6, 2011 at 12:19PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Broken_Engineer

    The issue I have is that the Erik and Charles relationship is not developed enough, they act as it is deep but I just cant believe it at some point. I wish he turned magneto in the next movie. And I was so annoyed that the allegory was about homosexuality rather than race. By no means I have anything against homosexuality but in the era race would be interesting. My friends were saying magneto is malcolm x to charles' martin luther king. Another issue, which is more marketing they showed all the action in the trailers and I could not avoid it cos it was in the cinema but thats nitpicking. But hey what do you think Drew?

    June 6, 2011 at 8:02PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    chudleycannons

    What do you think about Darwin though? I was a bit frustrated that out of the two black characters in the movie, one was killed off early on and the other decided to be a villian in the same scene. Throw in that by the end of the film there were no female X-Men, it was frustrating to see that they ended up with an all white (and one blue/white) male team.

    June 8, 2011 at 6:59PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    nick_r

    Just saw the movie today, finally. I liked it parts of it a lot, and I liked it as a whole pretty well. It felt a bit like the first Singer X-Men in that story and character introductions were awkwardly mixed together, and I had no trouble believing that the screenplay had as many hands on it as it did.



    More than anything, this movie made me desperately want to see Matthew Vaughn direct a future Bond film starring Michael Fassbender. The Magneto Nazi-hunting scenes were my favorite stuff in the film by far, even though they only occupied a few minutes of screen time in total.

    June 11, 2011 at 8:59PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Joseph Agreed. As one reviewer noted (maybe it was even Drew in his first review), I could watch an entire movie of "Magneto: Nazi Hunter".

      June 13, 2011 at 3:27PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Joseph

    Great review(s), I loved the film as well and agree with most of what you wrote. I was, however, more disappointed with Emma in the film than you were. If the character in the film had better reflected the way she has been written recently in the comics (by Morrison, Ellis, Whedon) she could have been a really fun source of dry wit and humor, and the fact she was so bland was a huge missed opportunity, I think. Granted, I'm not sure January Jones could have pulled that particular character off anyway.

    June 13, 2011 at 3:26PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    tarunverma

    Franchise Review Board is the premier source of the review is a franchise, FDDs, Franchise disclosure documents, corporate sales and business opportunities
    franchise opportunities
    businesses for sale

    June 22, 2011 at 2:38AM EST Reply to Comment
Drew McWeeny

About This Blog

Los Angeles has changed since 1990, and Drew McWeeny, all-around Chauncey Gardner of movie fandom, has seen it all as an industry insider and screenwriter who wrote for 12 years as "Moriarty" for Ain't It Cool News.

Get Instant Alerts on Motion/Captured

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook