I have the luxury of not being a fan of the comics, so I find no offense when some character's superpowers or origin don't match the "book." Also, I have seen enough Marvel-licensed projects to set my expectations low. In short, I was expecting almost nothing.
The first two X-men were poor projects, but at least had *some* imagination. Sadly, it wasn't visual or cinematic. This lacks everything, but you can read all about that elsewhere. Here, all you'll find is some speculation about the root of thing: why it is rotten and probably unfixable at the core.
The book depended on a the universality of differentness. The idea behind the notion of "mutant" was that there were perhaps tens of millions of mutants including nearly every reader. Different, strange but talented beyond the norm in some usually unappreciated way. Spurned or at least misunderstood by parents and bosses.
In this cosmology, we all live in a modified noir world, one that toys with the fate of a whole class rather than a single, accidentally selected individual (and his girl). When we see higher level mutants behaving heroically, they do it as representatives of us, or so the comics go.
That's turned on its head here: lower level mutants are innocent pawns just as all the other types of people, soldiers, random motorists whose idea was it to show that every car had children in it, then use those occupied cars as firebombs?
And if the target demographic is 14 year old boys and those who wish they were, why use 40 year old women? Or is it not supposed to matter? Well, it didn't to me, but the complete lack of cinematic imagination says this needs to go away.
The anti-mutating mutant was apt, though.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
