The Hot Blog

The Crow is much better than you give it credit for. Destined for true culthood.

Kind of my point, Martin S.

It IS... for some people. Not so much for others. I like the film, but it's not my favorite on that list... not in the top 3.

And in that same year, Wolf did $15 million more at the box office and was seen as a career-threatening disaster, while The Crow did, indeed, attain major cult status.

Perception...

There you go, snap that embargo in half!

"Liev Schreiber and Danny Huston are more than capable of making their cardboard characters into people we are interested in seeing on screen. "

Speak for yourself on that one.

I'm surprised how apologetic this review is, David. The film, I felt, was an anonymous trek from, seemingly, a director-for-hire. And frankly, it was better than I anticipated. But to ask us what we were expecting? Well, X2 did a fine job of being one of the 10 best films of 2003, so I'm not sure why plumbing the depths of the franchise's most interesting character and offering up an origin tale with substance was so much to ask.

I'd also call The Crow and the Blade movies as more than just functional. Those are legitimately great movies. I think The Crow has already achieved some kind of culthood.

And it's apples and oranges with Wolf, because who expected much from The Crow, while Wolf had post Batman Nicholson as his box office height in a movie that cost almost four times as much. There's no perception involved with that movie making almost the same amount of money and being seen as a disappointment.

I love The Crow but have to defend Wolf as having the sexiest Michelle Pfeiffer performance outside of Batman Returns. Nichols certainly knew how to get her glammed up when she usually downplays her stunning looks.

I read it too fast. You're right.

I love Wolf. It's the only movie to truly update the old Universal Monsters feel to the modern day. The Henry Hull makeup. Chaney's clothing style. Plummer's giant estate and evil Claude Rains.

Del Toro's Wolf Man actually has more in common with Hammer's Curse of the Werewolf, but that's a discussion for next fall.

Re: Pfeiffer. I've never cared for her because she's too pretty for most of the roles she's tried to take, but I bought her in Wolf because the character was supposed to be a spoiled ex-wild child burnout. Spader was very good, also.

I really really really hated Wolf. I thought it was such a bore, and then the werewolves fighting in the end...bleh.

I'm looking forward to The Wolf Man though. I love period horror pictures.

Kris...

1. I was told the embargo was today. As is too often the case, you assume too much.

2. It's an apologetic review if you think the film requires an apology. I don't. I just wish people didn't have these weird ideas that every movie has to be what they hoped it would be.

This movie makes Taken look like cole slaw. But no one expected Taken to be anything but junk, so better than expected for many.

I don't think calling it a B-movie is anyone else's idea of an apology. It's what the movie is.

3. X2 is spectacularly overrated. It's a good comic book movie. It's a much bigger movie than this... yet it got credit for adding some of the kinds of effects that this film takes for granted. More perspective issues. Did this have to be X2+ for you to be happy?

4. What substance are you looking for? Training in the mountains? Shooting a forest in IMAX? Seriously... the delusion that any of these movies are deep is truly bizarre to me. God bless Chris Nolan, but Wolverine ain't Batman... never meant to be... never gonna be, Bub.

Fair enough, this film is less deep than some... but none of them are exactly War & Peace.

Great Review DP.

I love X2, but I would agree it has been overrated as well. Have people forgotten the childish "I believe in you" spiritual angle between Storm and Nightcrawler? The complete waste of Cyclops and Storm? On the other hand, there are some good things that X3 did that it never gets credited for.

Blade and Crow are great favorites of mine...not too mention that Brandon Lee, may he RIP, was wonderful Gothic eye candy. What a loss. I'd watch him do anything.

The wolf fight at the end of Wolf made me laugh out loud. Bad...bad...bad. Pfeiffer is better in creepy movies like Batman II, and Ladyhawke.

Island of Lost SOuls make-up effects to get wolf-like dogs was way more believable.

"But all of these films spoke to the audience that was listening, created some major fans and some major detractors..." I agree with a lot of what you've said. However, I think your Iron Man analysis is way off. Iron Man was a fantastic adaptation and is unfairly lumped in with Hellboy and Constantine.

It's funny, I always thought Brandon Lee was a boring guy with no real charisma...until he was in The Crow. He really was great in that.

I don't think any of the X-Men movies have been all that great. I liked watching them all just fine, but that's about it.

Back in 1994, I wrotw that Wolf as "isn't so much a monster melodrama as a thoughtful
metaphor for the quandary facing anyone of taste, culture and moral standards
in a decadent society that places little value on such luxuries. Randall [Jack Nicholson's character],
perhaps the last honest man in contemporary publishing, must turn into a beast
to protect his turf, and himself, from the vandals, betrayers and philistines
around him. It's a clever concept, one that triggers the sharpest dialogue in
the movie's funniest scenes. But Wolf doesn't play the concept entirely for
laughs -- Randall's loosening grip on his own humanity is never treated as
anything other than cause for alarm. Ironically, Wolf is least successful when it tries to deliver old-fashioned
B-movie thrills and chills. Nichols has an unfortunate fondness for
slow-motion cinematography during the wolf rampages, particularly during a
climactic battle between Randall and his most formidable foe. This sort of
thing looked a lot better on such 1970s TV series as The Incredible Hulk and
The Six Million Dollar Man."

Er... back in 1994, I WROTE...

Er... back in 1994, I WROTE...

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Sorry about the double post.

'...and after 107 minutes, you are ready to sit through the next Origins, not expecting the world, but not unhappy to be there for the ride.

What else, exactly, were you expecting?'

why use the word 'you' in reviews, david poland? it sounds bossy. i most certainly wasn't ready to sit thu the next origins (i was ready for a cup of coffee to wake me up and several beers), and i wasn't expecting anything in particular but i was HOPING for something good rather than pedestrian

X-2 could be the best "geek movie" of the decade. It takes all the fetishes of geek culture (comic book iconography, large scale action, hip dialogue, clever plotting, sexy gals, cool for the sake of cool) and blends them just right. Only James Cameron does that stuff better.

Singer's attempt to do the same with Superman, wasn't as successful -- the story they came up with deserved better scenes I thought -- but the vision to simultaneously rework, recycle and revisit the Donner film was commendable.

As for the new film ("Wolverine Begins" starring the actor who originally played him)... I hope it's good... but what exactly am I supposed to be excited about here?

I just wish people didn't have these weird ideas that every movie has to be what they hoped it would be.

It isn't weird if you've read the source material, and expected an adaptation of such. Wolverine is no adaptation. It is an entirely different animal, and surprisingly banal at that.

I watched all three X-Men pictures this weekend. X2: X-Men United may not be a perfect movie, but the opening 45 minutes may be the most flawless chunk of superhero cinema ever made.

What killed Wolverne for me was that it was just 'eh'. I found it lifeless and drab, devoid of imagination and ambition. I may have disliked them, but at least Superman Returns or Spider-Man 3 were go-for-broke projects. Even crap like Ghost Rider was a certain 'what the hell?' awfulness that makes it worth seeing once. I found Wolverine to be the One Missed Call of superhero films. Not awesomely bad, but completely lacking in anything to find compelling... it's just there. Right or wrong, it just didn't do a thing for me.

amen to that, scott; i may not have made myself very clear in my comment above about 'wolverine' but that is exactly how i feel about it, thank goodness it's not just me. i would rather a film go for broke and fail miserably and spectacularly than just be dull, pointless and mediocre. 'wolverine' almost felt like a video game to me for how completely unmoved by it i was.

'I just wish people didn't have these weird ideas that every movie has to be what they hoped it would be.'

i'll wait for your proper review, dp, but why do i get the feeling from what you've written about 'trek' so far that that's exactly how you have approached that movie, expecting certain things from it and dismissing it for not being the 'trek' you want, and yet you are chastising people about finding 'wolverine' mediocre, as if that's all we should expect from 'wolverine'

i wanted 'wolverine' to kick ass, was that wrong of me?

"As with Star Trek, there is no real threat of death for our hero(es) in a prequel."

Haven't seen the new Trek, but as I understand it the new timeline is so changed that in fact the future of the characters is no longer written. Not that they're gonna kill any of the leads off in part one of a new franchise anyway, but surely Nimoy's Old Spock could die if the plot called for it?

I'm under embargo till Friday re: Wolverine, so no comment till then.

Leah: Wolvie does not always kick ass. A lot of the time; Wolvie just sort of hangs out. He goes around the world, talks to some people, then eventually gets into trouble. Which leads to the fighting. Again; this movie seems to follow the Wolvie formula to a T.

Good to know that Wolvie is a horrible waste of time with great EFFECT SHOTS! HOY BOY! SIGN ME UP ON THE DOTTED LINE!

uh, io: i wanted THE MOVIE to kick ass. believe me, the character does plenty of slicing and dicing through the entire video game. i mean movie

shit, i meant to ask:

lyt, how can you be under embargo for a movie that has opened everywhere? just wondering, that seems bizarre

It hasn't opened here...it opens Friday and Fox has asked for my review to be held until then. Which I actually have no control over, since my editor is the one in charge of that.

I'm not saying that that makes sense, but it is what it is. I won't publicly comment till my review runs.

fair enough, i thought the movie opened on the 29th of april worldwide, why i thought that i have no idea

when i was posting my comment above i happened to glance the comment at the top of the thread about 'the crow' and i thought, 'the crow' may not be the world's best movie, or 'wolf' for that matter, and perhaps those movies don't work for everyone, but at least 'the crow' and 'wolf' were striving for something beyond the median curve, they have a certain style, a certain flair, personality, character; in a way 'wolverine' represents everything i find worrisome and despicable about more and more movies today: no audacity, no risk, no imagination, no stamp of personal style, just...generic

Stop with the Superman Returns bad mouthing. It keeps happening but i don't see how you can lump that in with Ghost Rider, Catwoman and Fantastic Four!!! Sure, it's no Dark Knight but based on your review it's probably more in line with Wolverine.

David, usually I'm either right there with ya or can at least see your point but this time you're just being far too kind. I don't have the words to describe how bad X-Men Origins is. It's Blade 3 without Jessica Biel to look at. It's Batman and Robin [in terms of quality and in that it exists solely to sell action figures]. It's bolstered my opinion of Michael Bay uhm "talents." And you'd have to have been watching a different film to compare it to Iron Man, The Crow or Hellboy.

I'm sorry if this is running on but, to sum up just how bad it is and how no one involved in Wolverine [other than Hugh's personal trainer] seems to have been trying to make an enjoyable film. I'd have to a) imitate the mad astronaut’s manuscript from Michael Moorcock’s The Final Programme by simply neatly typing “HA,” over and over again [to highlight how the film was so God awful it actually forced fits of disbelieving laughter out of me] and then b) lift a phrase from one of the soldiers letters read aloud in Good Morning Vietnam and say that X-Men Origins: Wolverine stunk worse than the sweat on a dead man’s balls.

Seriously David. X2 is overrated and "substance" isn't exactly the issue. Though I think it's a tad condescending to write off a whole sub-genre that has included plenty of it as somehow lacking it inherently. The issue here is that Wolverine lacks any sense of internal logic - emphasis on internal there - and simply isn't as well made as the films you've compared it too. As for preconceptions. I thought it was going to be bad and I was still surprised by just how awful it is.

O' and I think you agree. I remember your review of Hellboy and this one didn't remind me of it.

Anyone else here prefer XMen 3 over the other 2? I don't understand why it's hated so much, other than a collective Pavlovian negative response to the words "Brett" and "Ratner". The action was well executed, it was short and to the point, didn't dwell too much on anything, good interaction b/w Prof X and Magneto.

Whatever. I'm not seeing Origins b/c i don't care enough. Now, had they done a movie about Wolvie in Japan, his relationship to Mariko, the Hand, etc, I'd be there Friday morning.

Anyways, any comic book reader worth his shit knows that the Wolverine Origins book that came out a few years ago was crap and nothing other than the suits at Marvel trying to establish the creation of some bullshit origin so that they can end up making a movie out of something THEY created, and not the original creators, and subsequent brilliant writers (Chris Claremont et al) who always elected to keep Wolvie's origin shrouded in mystery.

I'm with you with wolvie in Japan movie Aris, the favorite comics from my youth is the Kitty Pryde and Wolverine mini-series. X-Men 2 was by far the best in my opinion, and I am sure that has a lot to do with it being adapted from an existing comic story.

Aris, since you asked: my problem with X-Men 3 was that they took a franchise built on interesting characters and concepts and delivered an action movie that screwed with the characters and disregarded the concepts completely. And they didn't screw with them in a "hey, let's make the audience think" kind of way. They screwed with them in a "we have no idea what made the first two movies work" kind of way.

(Case in point: The central relationship of the story clearly should have been Cyclops and Phoenix, but since Wolverine sells the toys, they just arbitrarily killed Cyclops and inserted Wolverine in his place. WTF?)

It was a sequel in only superficial ways. It was the New Coke of superhero movies.

And this is a day after the fact Martin but besides Dangerous Minds and Frankie and Johnny what roles was Pfeiffer too pretty for? Her looks are acknowledged in almost all her films and she usually plays women whose beauty has proven a burden for them. I don't see anyone in the current crop of up and coming american actresses who can bring the same depth to the roles that she excelled at.

I prefer X3 over X2 in the sense that it's easier to watch. X2 is a broad, somewhat long viewing experience. Bryan Singer's work is so damn good good there that I find myself hard pressed to watch X1 for any reason other than a trilogy marathon. The difference between the first and second movie is night and day. X2 is still my #1 comic book movie. It's a truly remarkable movie, but in my experiences it demands that I devote all of my time to it. X3 gives me most of what I expect and for that it's easier for me to sit down and watch whenever I desire. It feels very much like X2, maintains the same actors, and provided a nearly satisfactory ending to the story that has been presented for the past 6 years. Brett Ratner was probably the perfect guy to make this movie simply because it moves at a pace that never overstays it's welcome. Things move briskly and towards a conclusion. That's a plus in my book.

And about Blade. The opposite is present here. Blade is the only good movie in the trilogy. G. del Toro for me, pussified the Blade character in Blade II. He made him too lighthearted with the blowing kisses at his bike and the female relationship that was a complete opposite of the first movie. Maybe this is a byproduct of what story was in place. The first movie is about his origin and history with his movie. The second isn't really about Blade, but a different vampire and his own family issues. He's not as integral this time around. I also disliked the group of people that Blade was forced to work with during the course of that movie. I think they were included just so G. del Toro's buddy Ron Perlman got a part. They were ultimately picked off one by one per typical Hollywood conventions.

I like how you slipped in a stealth review for Trek in this, Dave.

"the delusion that any of these movies are deep is truly bizarre to me."

Wow. FATAL FLAW my friend. Welcome to the old timers club. "Them rascally comics ain't got nothing to 'em. Just cartoon character fer cryin' out loud."

Wouldn't have expected it from you.

And pardon the assumption, by the way. Apparently you were the only critic in the country told that the review was yesterday and not 5/1 (outside of the entitled trades, of course).

Nothing stealthy about it, Story. No embargo, it seems. I am also of two minds about Star Trek... though in a completely different way.

I am actually trying to figure out, in my own head, before I write, how to balance what makes sense about the new Trek and not just make a list of all of the things that are wrong with it. I don't dislike the film... but I don't really like it either. And I think the latter is a function of "what it is" in equal parts with the artistic failures within.

It is a true JJ Abrams piece, for everything that great and horrible about that. And whether I am a fan is secondary to whether it works within its own context... and as in this case, whether it works within the context that intelligent, thoughtful commenters bring to it themselves.

Without directly comparing the two films in either way, I am kind of ambivalent towards Trek as I was towards Ang Lee's Hulk... and in some ways, towards Wolverine.

spot on review, in my opinion. I was awfully harsh on it on the first viewing, but i've softened to it. It is senseless filmmaking. The final fight sequence is of no consequence whatsoever.

I suppose it's fair to post spoilers in a review post, and i'll try to keep it vague.

SPOILER ALERT

In X2, we meet Stryker's son. A mutant who has the ability to control the minds of others (Mastermind from the comics i'm assuming). There is a lot made in X2 that Stryker's hatred of Mutant kind comes from the relationship with his son. Couldn't they have worked that angle in? They could have made Stryker's son one of the Government Agents, and guess who ends up crippling the guy and putting him in that wheelchair...

At least that way, you have some connections to the narrative set up in X2. Plus, since the guy has mind control properties, it could have been used as a device for the mindwipe that left Logan unaware of his past events.

END SPOILERS

Anyway, that's just a quibble with the directionless story which seems intent on cramming in as many characters as they can before the credits role, whether there is sense in it or not.

It's not awful, but it isn't very good. Still, if they get this origin bullshit out of the way and do Miller's Japan/Wolverine story, i'll be happy. They've spent so much time on Wolverine's attempt at finding himself that the character lost out on some of the fun he's capable of.

You're dead on about the final fight. There's no point to it. If you've got a guy who can teleport, fire lasers from his eyes and god knows what, why would you go toe to toe with two guys whose attacks rely on proximity?

And why does every X-Men story end with buildings and structures being leveled? It seems like the laziest device, especially in this one.

Not just buildings and structures. They seem to be hell-bent on making American monuments or famous sites front and center: Statue of Liberty, White House, Golden Gate Bridge, now Three Mile Island.

Anghus -

I believe the kid Logan finds frozen in the glass tube is supposed to be Stryker's kid. Not that they do anything to make this clear - but that was my impression.

And yeah, useing him as a catalyst for wiping Logan's memory would have worked much beter, and made more sense overall, than the rather cluncky way the do it in this film.

Actually, what would've made more sense is doing the memory loss as it was in X2. It's pretty heavily implied in the flashbacks in X2 that Logan lost his memory due to the experiment.

I still don't understand why they couldn't have worked that into this film, since this is a direct prequel.

Okay, my review went up, so I guess it's fair to comment now...

-Anyone else have a problem with how bad the digital compositing was?

-If you hated Darth Vader's "NOOOOO!" in Revenge of the Sith, there are something like four versions of it here.

-frankly, I think Gavin Hood IS to blame for the film's problems. TSOTSI had an exotic locale, but had it been in English I think people would have been more inclined to notice how overly sentimental and cliched it was...just like WOLVERINE!

-What about that "Ma and Pa Kent" old couple -- exec producer Richard Donner totally ripping himself off, or what?

-I did like the casting, however, and with the glaring exception of Deadpool's final iteration, they got the characters right.

I've found that I tend to be almost the opposite of David on comedies and superhero movies (new ones, at least). Still not quite sure how we both managed to love Matrix Reloaded.

Still, as far as what more I could have wanted -- fixing all the above-mentioned problems. The movie frustrated me because it's not terrible, but it's way short of being very good.

LYT wrote: -If you hated Darth Vader's "NOOOOO!" in Revenge of the Sith, there are something like four versions of it here."

I can't wait for that to parodied on Sat Night Live. Wolverine the lumberjack ready to have his flapjacks before going off to work. Then the wife, who'll prolly be bandaged up like the Mummy, will say we're out of syrup, honey. And Wolverine will howl "Noooooooo!!!" then they'll camera out to show the cabin, the cut to the aerail of tree tops, crows will fly out en mass, cut back to large countryside, cut out to satellite shot, cut to shot of galaxy with some aliens passing by in a space ship holding their ears from the scream.

It felt rather piecemeal to me. Lot of things, such as ma & pa kent, dropped in and discarded. Everything was explained, so it wasn't a matter of being lost but it didn't have that single binding story feel that X2 had or Batman Begins had or Spidey 2 had. Yeah, it would be silly to believe every film is gonna hit those watershed marks but I expect either some surprises or better visual or retelling not same ol', same ol'. It's like the old batman tv series or wild wild west, the hero's tied to some track trying to get free before the candle burns through the rope to release the giant crushy thing, right the the person he saved or spared earlier pops out to cut the ropes and the hero's able to leap away. Without going into any more detail or play spoiler, all I could think was "Really? Is that all you've got??"

Aris, re: X3 You know I didn't think it was a bad movie, it just wasn't a good X-Men movie. i think Eric really nailed it. Mild X3 spoiler: Wolverine standing on the edge of the city screaming, "C'mon guys, let's go save the day!" was nothing short of complete defilement of him, the true character and everything that had taken place previously from film 1 up to that point.

What I really want to see out of a summer tentpole movie is something that doesn't look like a checklist off a minibar. Sure I like whiskey, vodka and tequila but don't throw in cornnuts just cuz cornnuts are always in there. Helicopters are cool but holy crap they're becoming the new nylon tent w/sex starved teens in terms of survivability. When someone radios in from base I don't know why they don't just say, "Base to victim #3, come in victim 3." I don't need to see a slingshot take out the Apache just because somebody tossed the idea out in a development meeting as something that'd look cool that they could afford. Hell, read the police blotters of youth offenders and then get some imaginative ideas over stuff that can be blown up with paint thinner and supplies off an old lawnmower.

For the record, I thought The Crow and Wolf both suckt.

cut & pasted from a while back ('does size matter...in the summer movie season'), my initial thoughts on 'wolverine', just to be on the record with what would appear to be mounting opinion that 'wolv' is decidedly mediocre:

"dp, thinking about 'wolverine', i appreciate that you may not be able to elaborate much because of embargoes and such, but isn't the ultimate goal of films like 'trek' and 'wolverine', fantasy action adventures, to be somehow convincing while managing to thrill/entertain/take you on a wild ride/knock your socks off?

i feel comfortable saying 'wolverine' fell short of this goal. i don't see how you could argue that the movie isn't poorly written (the plot is silly and there are all these surplus characters that serve no purpose to the story, it's a rather bizarre hodgepodge with no clear narrative) and the execution is pedestrian...it lacks coherence and effective pacing and a sense of purpose and urgency, and perhaps most importantly and elusively, heart.

this is your rodeo and i respect your opinion, i guess i'm just curious to hear what you think 'wolverine's goal was, and how you think it achieved that goal. because unless the goal was to be average verging on silly, i don't see it and i don't think i'm a lonely camper on this one."

my two cents

(triple op, you think 'the crow' and 'wolf' sucked and that's fine, but at least proyas and nichols were trying for something, both films have a modicum of directorial vision and style, and at least you did hate them, at least they elicited some kind of emotional reaction from you. i would so rather 'wolverine' had gone for broke, for something unique and stylish - i think the potential was there even if wolverine's back-story is retconning at its worst - and really shot for the moon and failed and i'd hated it, rather than of just playing it safe and boring and same ol, same ol. dull, dull, dull. i'm so sick of so many movies these days all looking alike. are the studios getting so chickenshit that they go for the safety of 'lukewarm', afraid to spread their wings and shoot for the stars in case they end up crashing into the gutter? 'hey, lets just play it safe and make all movies look the same and mediocre and break even, yay, what fun! if so, to quote '28 days later', the end is extremely fucking nigh)

triple op, just so you know my little diatribe there wasn't aimed at you, you were just the jumping off point for my thought process, i'm not sure that's clear reading what i just posted)

STAR TREK SPOILERS:

Not to be a dick, but you really weren't paying attention if you thought no one could die in Star Trek.

STAR TREK SPOILERS:

They made it very clear that anyone could die in the movie.

ROTHCHILD SPOILERS:

I'm a dumbass.

No problem, Leah. I didn't feel your ire. Agree w/you wholeheartedly, too. Although I do feel a bit guilty. Not sure I had enough energy to hate Wolf only because I spent it all trying to stay awake. The Crow, now that's another story. That's like one of the few times I've dismissed a woman right off the bat. At a sports bar about 10 yrs ago w/my roommie at the time and we got into this convo w/some other people and one lady who when she turned around revealed a Crow T-shirt she had on. I asked if she liked the film and she said it was one of her favorites. My roommate kinda gave a "oh boy" under his breath and it was all I could do to keep from checking out right there. I admit to feeling really shallow. That kind of write off generally only reserved for extreme signs of prejudice but it seemed like all I could do was be polite and nod from that point on.

I could’ve done w/a stylized & updated Deathwish but it was so lame. It’s def more irksome to come out a big film like Wolvie and feel like any original thought was vetoed before it reached production.

hey triple, i heard that. and i love hating on the movies i hate, almost as much as i love loving the movies i love. the movie i hate most in the world is 'strictly ballroom'. fuck that shit

I've met some hot Goth chicks who loved he Crow. In my opinion, even if I hated it I'd pretend that I liked it.

And Rothchild...while technically anyone could die in Star Trek, if I go to see it do I really think they're going to kill off Kirk or Scotty? Maybe they kill someone off and I'd be shocked... but to me it's like seeing a Batman movie, him dying or not dying isn't really in question, of course he's gong to win. So you gotta stack the odds against him so he can defeat them in an interesting way.

There's no way Skip Woods is a real person.