No, I'm seriously asking. It has all the elements of a good movie. Decent acting, photography that actually doesn't suck, a workable (if a bit generic) score, characters we've been itching to see on screen, and even good acting. So why does it come across as so ... meh? It's a head scratcher. But then again, just because you mix good food together, it doesn't mean it'll make a nice stew. The only thing left that I didn't mention is story. The story inches forward at a snail's pace, and obvious plot elements are drawn out at the expense of potentially more interesting ones. Even that could be forgivable in what is essentially an action movie. Maybe that's it. It's an action movie that wants to be a bit deeper, but it falls well short of the Die Hard mark, which is the metric against which I measure any action movie that's actually watchable. All in all, I kind of want to like it. Hugh Jackman plays Wolverine so well, and the Origins story was pretty good (what a tweeest) when I read it years ago now. But, ultimately, it's just kind of bleh. Good for an afternoon watch, but not much more.
I have to agree with the critics. Basically a C+. (Though I disagree with Ebert's assertion that we can't care about him because he can't be hurt. That's stupid. That would rule out Superman, any robots, cartoons, really any child characters, etc.)
#2
Hailey Knight
He can get hurt.
In his heart.
In his love.
#3
Charlie Don't Surf
I remember how he drops to his knees and yells NOOOOOOOOOOOO three to four times in the movie in a really comically, drawn out, shitty way.
Also somehow the claw effects look worse than the X-Men movies that came out 10 years earlier.
We can't care for wolverine, not only because he can't get hurt, but because there is no lasting story arc. He forgets everything in the end, any feeble character progression he may have had gets tossed out the window.
