I would argue that when people/comic fans think of the X-Men (pre-movies), they would automatically think of Wolverine as well. He is a very affable character.
A very popular character, yes, but the word "affable" means friendly, pleasant, polite, and benign, none of which even comes close to describing Wolverine.
I recognize, however, that the first two seem to be fairly highly regarded, at least in some circles, though I don't think they really deserve it. I found the first movie, especially, really boring and clumsy. Wolverine doesn't do much of anything for me as a character, so that is doubtless a factor. But really, what stands out about these movies, other than perhaps Jackman as Wolverine if that is your thing?
Not at all. I think Jackman was completely miscast as Wolverine. He's Wolverine reinterpreted as a glamorous action hero, which has never made sense to me. (For one thing, why would the nickname "Wolverine," which refers to a small, scrappy animal, have been applied to someone 6'3" tall? Wouldn't they have called him the Wolf or something instead?)
What stands out is Singer's serious, stylish approach, treating a superhero film as a classy, moody dramatic tale. What stands out are the performances of Stewart and McKellen and the rich history and interplay between their characters. What stands out is the creation of a whole engaging world as the setting for the films, even if that world differs from the comics' interpretation (which is hardly a criticism, since the whole point of an adaptation is to adapt, to reimagine, not to copy).
I guess this movie came out a couple of years before Spiderman, but I would have pegged the Spidey films as the trendsetting superhero flicks.
Nope. Getting Bryan Singer, the director of
The Usual Suspects and
Apt Pupil, to do a comic-book film was trendsetting. The idea of a director known for such classy, arty work being attached to a comic-book movie was a novelty and did a lot to make comic-book films more respectable and more mature. It paved the way for Sam Raimi (who'd established himself by that point as a fairly classy art-film kind of director in Hollywood, regardless of his earlier reputation for kitsch) getting Spider-Man, for Christopher Nolan getting Batman, for Jon Favreau getting Iron Man, for Kenneth Branagh getting Thor. (And, on the downside, it paved the way for Singer getting Superman and Ang Lee getting the Hulk. Even good directors have their misfires. But at least those were ambitious, intelligent efforts.)
As far as superhero films are concerned, off the top of my head I would say that Superman, Batman, Spidey 1 + 2, Iron Man and The Dark Knight stand out as exceptional in their own ways. But I don't think these movies really do.
But the latter four of those films wouldn't have been what they were if Singer's X-films hadn't paved the way. If those two films seem less impressive today, it's only because their successors have built higher on the foundations they established.
(And
Iron Man? Not one of the greats. The only thing that makes it stand out is the improv theater by Downey, and to a lesser degree by Paltrow and Bridges. Take away Downey's scene-stealing charisma and the screwball-comedy banter and you've got a strictly routine, by-the-numbers superhero-origin flick. It's a lot of fun to watch, but ultimately insubstantial. As for Burton's
Batman, it's a pretty good Tim Burton superhero movie, but I've never really felt that that guy in the rubber suit was actually Batman or anything close to him.)
