X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) (mini-review++)

x-men-origins-wolverine-production-stills-thumbnail-23541.jpg(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

acting 7

directing 7

effects 8

editing 7

writing 6


3.5 out of 5 🐙


One of the coolest things about Wolverine was his mysterious background. No one knew how he was made, how old he was, and other significant information. And that just added to his edgy character and brooding character. Weapon X, the miniseries that explained his origin in exacting detail, came out in the 90s. Even then I wasn’t excited about it. I wasn’t thrilled after I read it. It took the mystery away. And I already kinda knew it was an evil-ish military project. Everybody knew it was an evil-ish military project. They didn’t hide that fact. So there wasn’t any big surprise. As with the original miniseries, the movie was well done but it didn’t give me any new information. it was just well done. And, well, I don’t really have any strong urge to watch it again. That’s a big problem but it’s also a personal problem so I tried to be fair about the silly scores above. My deal is that if you’re gonna blow open a huge mystery, blow my mind.







(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)


One thought on “X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) (mini-review++)

Leave a Reply