Metascore
64

Generally favorable reviews - based on 33 Critics What's this?

User Score
7.5

Generally favorable reviews- based on 240 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Dr. Charles Xavier gathers children from all over the planet who were born with an added twist to their genetic code. Known as the "X-factor" these children can perform extraordinary feats. Dr. Xavier calls them his X-Men.
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 33
  2. Negative: 3 out of 33
  1. Reviewed by: Cody Clark
    90
    The best kind of summer blockbuster -- the kind that makes you immediately crave a sequel.
  2. Balances brains, brawn and heart in ideal proportions. The actors - some first-rate, all enjoyable - never get overshadowed by the special effects, which dazzle us without gory excess.
  3. 80
    When it comes to stoopid fun, X-Men could be the summer movie to beat.
  4. 75
    X-Men flies to the rescue with superheroes who have real substance.
  5. 63
    I started out liking this movie, while waiting for something really interesting to happen. When nothing did, I still didn't dislike it; I assume the X-Men will further develop their personalities if there is a sequel.
  6. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    60
    Plays like a so-so middle chapter of an epic series rather than a fitting kickoff.
  7. Isn't juvenile, it isn't even infantile. It's prenatal!

See all 33 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 45 out of 54
  2. Negative: 3 out of 54
  1. Jun 22, 2011
    10
    This masterpiece is the movie that unleashed the superhero renaissance of the 2000s. As someone who enjoyed X-Men as a kid, I was super excited when I heard they were making a movie, and the movie was indeed worth it. Expand
  2. Aug 1, 2011
    9
    Most all reviewers I have read will disagree with me here and say its first sequel was the better film, but for me this first X-men movie was the best. I remember watching the X-men cartoon on Fox and a lot older than I should have been when watching it. While watching that cartoon, I wondered what it would be like to have a movie version of what I was watching. Could it be done? Bryan Singer came along a few years later and showed me it could. I remember seeing an early picture of Hugh Jackman as Wolverine and thinking â Expand
  3. Aug 8, 2011
    9
    Like SPIDER-MAN and its very simply-named sequels, X-MEN has a lot of action that looks like it's straight out of a comic book that it is based on, something that in my opinion is concise and perfect for the viewer to see. Unlike SPIDER-MAN, SPIDER-MAN 2, and SPIDER-MAN 3, X-MEN is not your typical, cheesy "superhero" flick. If anything, it's much better. Besides the magnificent action, there is a well-explained, clear plot (obviously the inspiration for James Patterson's teen book saga MAXIMUM RIDE, if you are familiar with that); a few pinches of humor here and there (you'll have to watch it to get it); and much more. Expand
  4. Nov 23, 2011
    7
    I quite liked this film, it (mostly) got the feel of the X-men well. The acting was good and the storyline was decent. Not anything more than a 7 out of ten though, just doesn't seem right to give it a better score. Expand
  5. Sep 21, 2011
    7
    The movie pertains flawed graphics and hurriedly finished character development. However, "X Men" is nevertheless one of the grand comic-based movies of the proud Marvel Studios. Expand
  6. Nov 2, 2013
    7
    A movie wit good cast, good effects (although outdated by now), and a good storyline and packed with action. But it suffers from generic clich├ęs like most movies out there nowadays although unlike them it has the little things that i personally like to see in a movie and i don't see them very often. Expand
  7. Sep 28, 2011
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well, seeing as how we're starting to get more info these days about the new X-Men First Class film by Matthew Vaughn, I thought maybe it was time to look back and talk about the original X-Men film. First off, I wasn't all that taken with Ian McKellan as Magneto in the film. I mean yeah, the guy is a good actor, but he seemed far far too old for the role. That's just my own personal bias, I admit. But Ian McKellan looked nothing like that. And the thought of him and Mystique having any sort of romantic relationship was really bizarre, because of that age difference. Now, that's a Jim Lee picture of Magneto. Jim Lee does draw everyone as looking like Mr Universe, but it's an exaggerated appearance. That happens a lot in comic books. You can get somewhat close. Somewhere in the ballpark. There's no need to go off in the exact opposite direction. Bottom line... Magneto should've looked somewhat imposing. The guy's a big supervillain, and the main antagonist of the film. Ian McKellan did not look imposing. He looked like an old frail man who would break a hip if someone tripped him.

    And the WWII origin is problematic. That is going to become less and less believable as time goes on, and WWII fades further back into the history books. It's just not going to be workable. Look at Iron Man, and what happened there. Tony Stark originally built his Iron Man suit to escape from the Viet Cong, for God's sake. Then Warren Ellis updated it to the war in Afghanistan in his excellent "Extremis" arc. It made sense and brought the character's origin back into relevant memory. They're gonna need to do something similar with Magneto, I'd wager. The origin itself is very good, and certainly provides motivation for the character, but the age is unfeasible as time goes on. In 20 or 30 years, they're still going to be making X-Men films of some sort. Are we going be getting 100+ year old Magnetos then? Deviating from the comics is fine, if it's done well and makes sense and just... improves on the comics. A great example is Venom from Spider-Man TAS. I think just about everybody who's a fan of comics is aware of this one. In the original comics, Spider-Man got the black symbiote suit from Secret Wars, some stupid crossover that probably made no sense and had cosmic beings doing weird stuff. I dunno. But in Spider-Man TAS, they wisely just had it come back from a space shuttle coming back from Mars. Sorta like the beginning of Species 2, now that I think about it. But yeah, it worked so much better as an origin. Even though the origin deviated, we still got Venom. He was still the Venom we knew and liked. He wasn't some old and sickly Venom that looked as thin as a twig.

    Also, the film itself, made back in 2000, felt kinda lame. It seemed like there should've been more going on there. Everything felt cheap and budget-y. I guess because it was rather cheap and budget-y, as a film. But that harmed the experience while I was watching. For example... does anybody actually remember what Magneto's lair looked like? Any real notable characteristics? No? Yeah, I don't remember either. It was just this dark circular place, without any distinct identifiable features. It should tell you something.

    Probably the lowest point in the film, in my eyes, was the scene right in the middle of the story when we're taken to Xavier's school for the gifted and there's a montage of mutants exercising. And there's this one rather goofy shot of Cyclops doing target practice with clay pigeons. That for me felt incredibly silly and almost campy. Here's this powerful X-man, the leader of the entire group, gifted with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men, and he's just shooting at clay pigeons with his visor. That's what we get to watch? This is how you show us the powers of these mutants? It was also just comical, watching him rapidly swiveling his head this way and that, shooting the pigeons out of the air. I dunno, it got to me. The whole scene felt like a really lame way to show off these uncanny X-men. There's nothing extraordinary about popping some clay pigeons. Instead of building up the power and wonder of this character, it just diminished him in my eyes. And yeah, there's fine control and accuracy involved, sure. That's all well and good. But did it have to look so damn unimpressive and ordinary? A Danger Room session would've shown the same sorta skill, but without horribly underwhelming the audience. These X-men are supposed to protect mutantkind from threats like gigantic Sentinels and what have you, and this is how they train? By shooting at some clay targets? Cmon.
    Expand

See all 54 User Reviews

Trailers

Related Articles

  1. Ranked: The Best and Worst Film Franchises

    Ranked: The Best and Worst Film Franchises Image
    Published: August 8, 2012
    Can an ongoing film franchise maintain high quality over many years and multiple movies? This week's new Bourne movie only confirms how hard a task that is, though our rankings of 25 major film franchises shows that it isn't impossible.
  2. Iron Man 2 vs. Other Superhero Sequels

    Iron Man 2 vs. Other Superhero Sequels Image
    Published: May 6, 2010
    How does "Iron Man 2" compare to the first "Iron Man," and how have other superhero sequels performed in the past?