Tomatometer Watch: Is Wolverine Marvelous?
Read on to see if the critics feeling this solo outing from the most famous X-Man
37%
As much as audiences love
the blockbuster genre of the comic book movie,
X-Men Origins: Wolverine is only
the second such adaptation to hit screens in all of 2009. (Can it fare better
than the first comic book movie of the year,
Watchmen?) While that film's
odyssey to the screen was decades-long, Wolvy's beleaguered trip is also nothing
to sniff at, overcoming reshoots, publicized debates between director
Gavin Hood
and Fox, and the recent leak of the Wolverine work print, which was downloaded
illegally hundreds of thousands of times. So come Friday, will fanboys be in
love? Does Hugh
Jackman's reprisal of one of comicdom's most beloved characters
hold up?
Initial reviews have come entirely from international sources, predominately Australia where a portion of the film was shot. Dynamic review duo Louise Keller and Andrew Urban of Urban Cinefile proffers praise with little qualms:
"Exploding with as much entertainment value as Hugh Jackman has muscles, Wolverine is a dazzling comic book fantasy in which the characters, storytelling, action and special effects are perfectly balanced." - Louise Keller, Urban Cinefile
"Gavin Hood has packed such density into these 103 minutes which escalate into a tense and thrilling crescendo of a conclusion. Full credit goes to screenwriters David Benioff and Skip Woods for a coherent, excellent screenplay that elegantly and credibly morphs into the X-Men storylines." - Andrew Urban, Urban Cinefile
The other reviews come from more genre-oriented sources, like the international IGN Movies sites and Sci-Fi Movie Page. They give Wolverine a Fresh rating, but offer up detailed descriptions of what doesn't work within the movie, such as character bloat and a weak ending.
"...fan-favourites Gambit (Taylor Kitsch) and Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) simply don't have enough screen time to really make a significant impact on the audience." Patrick Kolan, IGN Movies Australia
"The finale doesn't quite hang together that well and also suffers from leaps in plot logic. It's as if the writers didn't know what should happen next." James O'Ehley, Sci-Fi Movie Page
But these criticisms are quickly tempered with praise. Kolan writes, "For those waiting for a comparison to 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand, be assured that it's certainly better in all respects." Likewise, O'Ehley notes that "these are minor issues: Wolverine boasts some neat special effects, some decent acting and, best of all, it runs for less than two hours unlike some recent bloated, butt-numbingly long super-hero epics."
So for how long and how effectively will Wolverine's claws keep the critics at bay? Watchmen had a similarly explosive Tomatometer debut back in March, before a steady slide into just-Fresh territory. Wolverine has the potential to be equally divisive. It'll be interesting to see whether the mild criticisms we see from Kolan, Parfitt, and O'Ehley will take up larger estate in reviews from the major and Top Critics.
Keep tabs on X-Men Origins: Wolverine's Tomatometer by regularly checking its movie page.
|
See more from Wolverine on RT |
||
(1-20 of 127 posts) | Reply
on Apr 28 2009 05:56 PM Will.I.Am sucks. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 28 2009 06:11 PM This Movie Sucks (Reply to this) |
on Apr 28 2009 06:12 PM It would be interesting to know how the most glowing reviews always seem to come out first. My guess would be RT has nothing to do with it, and it's simply a matter of critics who liked the movie most being able to write reviews faster (or, y'know, shills getting first crack, whichever). (Reply to this) |
on Apr 28 2009 06:12 PM In reply to this comment (#2443240) Ahahah, I still don't understand why he is in this, and why he is dressed up so badly. I think Wolverine will end up with a 60's or 70's. I think this article is REALLY pre-mature, only 6 reviews or so. At most it will be dumb entertainment. Also I don't trust that last critic because of his comment "these are minor issues: Wolverine boasts some neat special effects, some decent acting and, best of all, it runs for less than two hours unlike some recent bloated, butt-numbingly long super-hero epics."- He's obviously refering to TDK and Watchmen, so I dont trust him, and the guy at IGN thinks Transformers is a great movie. Wait until Ebert ways in, who is a sucker for comic book movies. I think Wolverine will end up in the 85-95 million range this weekend. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 06:12 PM I predict a 68% tomatometer. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 06:28 PM In reply to this comment (#2443271) Personal theory is that people who are inclined toward liking a movie make the effort to go see it first. In this particular case though it's probably because it was released in Australia before anywhere else and the lead actor is Aussie. Probably a combination of the two leads to the stellar early reviews or possibly it's just a really good summer movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 06:29 PM Whoa, jokerboy, I'm pretty sure Kolan only meant Watchmen which, despite being almost perfect, was really long. With regards to Wolverine, I think its going to be really fun. Maybe not Iron Man AWESOME, but seeing as Marvel put out their gold standard, we won't be subjected to anymore fantastic four's. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 06:40 PM if you read the sentence after that, you retards, he said specifically "we're looking at you here, Spiderman 3" (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 06:51 PM In reply to this comment (#2443316) "some recent bloated, butt-numbingly long super-hero epics." EPICS, EPIC with an S means more then one. Learn the meaning of plural, he didn't just mean Spiderman 3, or he's just a bad writer who missed grammar class. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 06:53 PM In reply to this comment (#2443298) Also RIZZYH, Wolverine wasn't made by MARVEL studios, it was made by 20th Century FOX. They made the Fantastic 4 movies, Daredevil, LXG, and Elektra. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 06:58 PM well then why didn't he say "you know who i'm talking about, especially you Spiderman 3" instead he said "we're looking at YOU here, spiderman 3" YOU not YOU ALL (Reply to this) |
on Apr 28 2009 07:06 PM I'm saying 72 to 68. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 28 2009 07:09 PM If this movie ends up in fresh territory I will be shocked. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 07:26 PM In reply to this comment (#2443272) Well, maybe he means "Transformers" is great for what it is. (Action figure/action/sci fi/thing). In which case I'd agree. I believe Roger Ebert said "The world needs another comic book movie like it needs another Bush administration" *Second Iron Man review. Roger Ebery wasn't that crazt about the X-Men films, while he liked the sequels, he called them "dumb" (X2) and said all of them are overstuffed with mutants. So we WILL see won't we? (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 07:28 PM It was okay, nothing fantatic. Better than Last Stand? .....possibly. Kind of left me with the same level of excitement, just not as let down. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 28 2009 07:31 PM 60-70% is my tomatometer guess. I hope it's more because I like the characters in it, but... well It's Fox, which makes me skeptical. (Reply to this) |
on Apr 28 2009 07:47 PM High 70s optimistically. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 08:05 PM In reply to this comment (#2443350) Because he didn't revise/proof read his review- sloppy writing or he did mean more then one movie but just threw in S3. Its an un-winnable argument, but we can agree that there may be a writing error here. (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 08:13 PM In reply to this comment (#2443272) jokerboy1991, This may sound like a REALLY stupid question, but did you like Watchmen?? It just seems like I am the only one in the whole world who thought it was AMAZING and BRILLIANT (not as good as TDK obviously, though) and DEFINITELY needed to be nearly 3 hours long to be true to the source material...Watchmen: the most celebrated graphic novel of ALL TIME!! Just wondering... (Reply to this) |
|
on Apr 28 2009 08:17 PM In regards to Wolverine though, I definitely think this will NOT be an amazing or even great comic-book film. Just average or good. About low 70's to high 60's is my prediction. That said it still looks like a great time at the movies and will DEFINITELY be entertaining at least!! NOT a masterpiece or the best movie of the summer!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! (Reply to this) |
| You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register. |
Related Links
Related Articles
-
The Adventures of the Wolverine Leaker
(62)
- Wolverine Creator Len Wein Talks About the Film (29)
- Gavin Hood Talks Wolverine; Possible Sequel (30)
- Win Exclusive Wolverine Prize Packs (0)
-
Does X-Men: First Class Have Its Cyclops?
(32)
- RT on DVD: Wolverine, Next Day Air, And Lots Of Horror (31)
-
Fox Hires McQuarrie for Wolverine Sequel
(9)
-
Jackman Talks Wolverine Sequel
(23)
- Cannes 2009: Exclusive – Taylor Kitsch Takes Gambit Forward for Wolverine 2 (9)
- Weekly Ketchup: Wolverine in Japan, Family Guy movie planned (84)
Latest Features
- Five Favorite Films With Precious' Gabby Sidibe (35)
- Five Favourite Films with Anika Noni Rose (17)
- Five Facts About Alice in Wonderland (70)
- 25 Movies So Bad They're Unmissable (113)
- The Future is Now! 10 Years of Movie Predictions (47)
- Meet the Universal Monsters Starting Lineup! (52)
- The 10 Most Unlikely Kids Movie Stars (34)
- 10 High Altitude Performances (20)
- Critics Choose Must-Sees and Worsts of 2009 (280)
- RT's Best of the Decade! (202)
What’s Hot On RT
Fresh Links
Featured
5 Nicholas Sparks Cliches
BuzzSugar points out the author's commonly used story conventions.
The Avatar-District 9 Brawl
Techland anticipates a feud between fans of the two acclaimed Sci-Fi films.
Promos
Get the RT Newsletter!
Sign up to receive our newsletter and stay up to date on all the latest Tomatometers and movie news!
RSS Feeds
