‘X-Men: First Class’ sits in middle ground for series

Going into today, 20th Century Fox was two for four in terms of cranking out decent "X-Men" properties.

Bryan Singer followed up a well-enough received first movie in 2000 with a spectacular sequel in 2003. When he left for Warner Brothers to helm a Superman film, Fox seemed to take it personally, hiring Brett Ratner to direct No. 3. The film was technically a success if you don't like to speculate on quality as being an indicator of audience approval. What "X-Men: The Last Stand" did to mildly stifle the progression of good sense and coherency in the franchise, the spin-off "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (still a terrible title) drove it face-first straight into the ground.

So what of the tie-breaker? A fifth film that further explores the frustrations and intricacies of the persecuted outcasts could offer what at this point? Could it be possible to cruise past the mistakes of past studio intervention and make a truly exceptional film? Or is it more than likely to repeat one's self due to iniquity of the players-that-be? For "X-Men: First Class" … well … a mixture of both, really.

"First Class" brings the young versions of Charles Xavier (played by James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) into the context of the 1960s. Xavier is a recent recipient of a doctorate from Oxford and Lehnsherr (later called "Magneto"), as a labor camp survivor, spends his days hunting down Nazi perpetrators to avenge the death of his mother. Both more or less on the same side at this point, they meet each other by chance while trying to stop another mutant, Sebastian Shaw (a Bond villian-esque Kevin Bacon). From there, the rest of the movie concerns itself to show the recruitment and training of fellow mutants to help avoid nuclear holocaust during the Cuban Missile Crisis nudged on by Shaw and his own small band.

The story is simple enough, as in no huge disparaging threats to continuity without being on purpose, but in the hands of director Matthew Vaughn, everything seems a little bit deeper, a little bit more textured and full. Visually, he grabs onto anything comic-styled: bright, but not overbearing colors, skewed vision when if ever straight on a character's face and more visible breathing room during fight sequences (you've nearly ruined my eyes, Michael Bay). He gives "First Class" a certain burst of fresh exuberance. Not only from the visuals, which hover between the dark "X-2" and the overly shiny "Wolverine" to give a great sense of the sunny, but atmospherically dim '60s.

The effects find themselves in something of a mixed bag as the CGI and the locations are gorgeous, but practical makeup on Mystique, Shaw's red-skinned associate Azazel and especially Beast still look ridiculous and hokey. They might as well be giant plush toys or plastic figurines for the way they transfer to live-action believability.

While Vaughn may not have impressed me too much with "Kick Ass," he certainly exhibited a developing sense of emotion and character over wild action in a movie most people never saw called "Stardust." So I wonder why that aspect becomes thinner and thinner as the movie goes on? McAvoy and Fassbender play there parts extremely well. They don't even necessarily give homage performances to their older incarnations from the earlier movies, the likes of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen. They seem to understand that without the hindrance of basing themselves on older versions, they're free to grow unbounded by a time frame in one movie. Maturity can come at a  later time … or a sequel.

Lesser characters like Mystique, Banshee, Beast and Emma Frost are given a leg up and a lot more to do but still seem to be no more effected than children sitting at the small table while the grown-ups argue about a divorce. It may very well be appropriate to sit them to the side, or to treat them as secondary involvement, but just as they begin to grow, their personalities die off during the final half hour. And as I said earlier, Bacon's natural charisma allows him to play a very vintage villain that only rarely has the propensity to become a stale suit. Otherwise, he nicely balances the mid-century suave with new era maniacal aspirations convincingly.

The overall mood here is fun, and I suppose that I shouldn't express anything more than gratitude for the fact that it cruises the middle-ground in the series on almost every level. The malaise of average becomes dimpled with triumph and failure almost precisely evenly. For every insightful, clever twist on the genre through a quip or a less than traditional emotional objective for a character, there is still a long, cheap speech, and a cliched turn of dialogue meant to avoid explaining anything. The objective and the players become Saturday-morning cartoons over graphic and calculated, which I feel would be genuine and purposeful if they weren't so bland and clearly stock.

Suspension of disbelief is key in movies like this. It is cultural curiosity that we would even conceive of seeing these characters that have been spread out over the course of 11 years. They must be intrinsically interesting about them. Sure, mutants are enjoyable to watch when they can do amazing things, and giant explosions are cool, but what are we really looking for? What does 20th Century Fox still think they have with the "X-Men" brand? I believe that operating in the fog can only get you a 50/50 chance of succeeding.

Matthew Vaughn must know what he's doing: with the help of some terrific others, he has created something good. Nothing X-traordinary (please don't kill me for that), but a fine piece of a small puzzle that's been beaten up on the corners for a little while now.

spenseralbertsen@dailynebraskan.com

Grade: B-