"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
The battle between good and evil has just been taken to another level - only,
it is a few notches below the most mundane of them. Mutations and mutants are
the premise for another comic strip that finds it way onto the big screen. But
X Men left me wondering that if, scientifically speaking, mutation is a step forward
in evolution, then what is a step backward? This one is surely a step behind in
the genre of science fiction movies, and when you consider how booby they all
are, the nature of the ordeal of sitting through a boring sci-fi flick can only
be left to your im....