Darren MooneyVarmennettu tili

“X-Men” seems quaint by modern superhero blockbuster standards. A fifty million dollar budget, a one hundred minute runtime, and abundance of exposition accounting for things modern audiences take for granted. It feels almost like a “beta” release for the superhero blockbuster.pic.twitter.com/BmY65sBqgF

It’s notable how “X-Men” hedges its bets, unsure that audiences are ready for a proper full-blooded superhero blockbuster. The film’s setting is still synopsised as “the near future” and Patrick Stewart’s narration (and Patrick Stewart himself) contextualise it as a sci-fi film.pic.twitter.com/NYUOFFiwjQ

Notably, “X-Men” is much more careful about its blunt “this is what each character can do” exposition and set-up than a lot of later blockbusters that take this stuff for granted. I actually don’t mind this (almost Claremontian) excessive clarity.pic.twitter.com/xysxSvwKW6

However, “X-Men” is surprisingly like the superhero films that would follow. The opening to “X-Men” was a rarity for a blockbuster to that point, but unheard of for a comic book film. It’s still one of the iconic comic book movie scenes. It takes the premise seriously.pic.twitter.com/y5TbNB5jCz

Opening a superhero film at a concentration camp was a risky move. It’s an absurdly fine line to walk in terms of taste. (See: “Apocalypse.”) But it signals a willingness to accept the source material at face value in a way no previous comic book adaptation had.pic.twitter.com/OQIqftsj3Y

This willingness to take the material seriously carries over in other ways. I love the Burton “Batman”, Donner “Superman” and the first two “Blade” movies, but “X-Men” takes its characters more seriously. “When they come out... does it hurt?” “Every time.” A beautiful moment.pic.twitter.com/IdAlAoXTsf

“... to become what the children affectionately call X-Men.” I had completely forgotten about Charles Xavier’s extended voice over guide to the School for Gifted Youth. Which is another example of the film’s uncertainty about whether or not the audience can keep up.pic.twitter.com/f07vEv3MzM

It also helps that “X-Men” cannily casts Wolverine as an extremely cynical audience member. He’s basically a sulking teen doing RiffTrax on the film. It’s similar to the ironic deadpan snarking we’ve come to associate with MCU films, but not quite as self-satisfied.pic.twitter.com/RhJ5eo928B

Underrated narrative choice in “X-Men”: the twist that the film is about Rogue and not Logan. The twist works in the context of the film, of the source material and ESPECIALLY of the films that follow. All of which suggest the audience should focus on Logan.pic.twitter.com/XuoxBOiwwc

While there’s no doubt bringing back Patrick Stewart was the right choice, I wonder if a version of “Logan” with Logan and Rogue could have worked. (There is nice symmetry in “Logan” in how the film parallels the Logan/Laura relationship with the Logan/Rogue one from “X-Men.”)pic.twitter.com/uYnYr3CM2O

As an aside, “X-Men” benefits greatly from doing a lot of low-key comic book stuff very well. It’s a bit more serious than a lot of comic book films to that point, but it’s still very comic-book-y movie. The soap opera Logan/Jean/Scott triangle is pure comic book, for example.pic.twitter.com/YPDaDERxQM

Similarly, Magneto’s frankly insane plot to turn a bunch of world leaders into mutants (who will most likely explode) is pure comic book nonsense. And the film is unapologetic about that, committing whole hog to a scheme that’s comparable to Lex Luthor’s landgrab in “Superman.”pic.twitter.com/zKJe5AzQqS

“X-Men” gets away with a lot just by casting Stewart and McKellen. Again, I love the Donner “Superman” or Burton “Batman” movies, but Stewart and McKellen raise the bar on the types of performances in the live action superhero genre. McKellen treats Magneto as a real person.pic.twitter.com/ZvnInXMQ9w

“You going to tell me to stay away from your girl?” “If I had to do that, then she wouldn’t be my girl.” The “X-Men” movies have no real idea how to use Cyclops, but I dig his straight laced stuck-in-the-mud western hero persona here. To the surprise of nobody who knows me.pic.twitter.com/Gkiy4VcMBD

It feels like pop culture has only recently caught on to James Marsden’s strengths as a performer; his very old-fashioned factory-designed good-looks-and-forthrightness persona. Cyclops typifies that persona very well. He’s a standard hero. Just a kinda dull one.pic.twitter.com/DItTsOVa5u

So, hey, where’s the internet outrage mob about Wolverine stealing Cyclops’ motorbike? #CaptainMarvelpic.twitter.com/TcsJpgY0ux

As an aside, there are few cultural markers in “X-Men” that anchor the film as firmly in the context of 2000 as firmly as the inclusion of Fluke’s “Atom Bomb” in Logan’s joyriding sequence.pic.twitter.com/OsWBS5WLFK

There’s a sense of the film not entirely understanding the genre that it’s codifying. The film has an ensemble roughly equivalent to that of the first “Avengers” movie. Twelve years early. However, while it gives Storm and Cyclops good scenes, it struggles to give them arcs.pic.twitter.com/171vKQD4zQ

As an aside, Toad is one of the great goofy comic book elements in “X-Men.” There’s a short scene where he kills guards on Ellis Island by hopping on them in the style of Mario. Ridiculous in a comic book fashion.pic.twitter.com/rKTwqfivSg

In terms of balancing its influences and being its own thing, I really like Michael Kamen’s score to “X-Men.” It comes close enough at times to evoking the iconic soundscape of the nineties cartoon - especially in the Blackbird sequences - but without ever being pandering.pic.twitter.com/EL0m3XwZxJ

“You're so full of sh!t. lf you're really so righteous, it'd be you in that thing.” Much like how Nolan’s “Dark Knight” later approaches the Joker, “X-Men” is clear that Magneto is a villain. No matter how good their rhetoric or arguments, they still cause innocents to suffer.pic.twitter.com/U91BDUQq4J

It’s interesting how effectively “X-Men” codified a nascent genre. In particular, despite being released in July 2000, it feels surprisingly like a “War on Terror” blockbuster in terms of tone, theme, content. Which may explain why “X-Men II” feels much more comfortable.pic.twitter.com/SoI0a1iJDL

The first “X-Men” movie finds a terrorist hatching a plot to radically destabilise global political structures, which involves weaponising (and destroying part of) a New York landmark. Again, it’s odd that the film arrived in July 2000.pic.twitter.com/zdqOxC9bQw

This is one of those strange synchronicities of “X-Men” and the soon-to-be-standard superhero blockbuster. The film prefigures a lot of what would follow, but not everything. And so it feels out of place slightly, out of time. A genre uncanny valley.pic.twitter.com/VrpjjbHuw2

Similarly, “X-Men” provides the first formal intersection of Joss Whedon and the superhero genre, its influence on “Buffy” notwithstanding. But again, the synchronicity is weird and uncanny. Only two of Whedon’s lines made it into the finished film. Almost, but not quite.pic.twitter.com/mo2JhmeYZB

In terms of that weird transitional uncanny valley that “X-Men” occupies, the ending is surprisingly old-fashioned. The music soars in a way that an MCU film would never allow. The characters cradle each other melodramatically. There is heightened, emotive ANGST.pic.twitter.com/ZuTMm7NaKR

It also helps that “X-Men” cleverly decides to close on a low-key closing scene between Charles and Erik, allowing Stewart and McKellen to wrap a bow on the film. Part of this just two great actors, but part of this is also helpful reframing of thematic concerns.pic.twitter.com/YFNBs1kXin

#NowWatching “X-Men II.” It’s perhaps the film in the franchise most impacted by revelations about Bryan Singer. It’s harder to separate Singer from the film than other “X-Men” films, as it’s both the one most about young men and most explicit in its metaphors about sexuality.pic.twitter.com/Has1xHZeOC