I mean, think about it... Hollywood basically took a character that's been around for 40 years, one of the most popular characters in the history of comics and said... "Hey we're gonna 'fix' him" "we're gonna 'punch up' his story".... "instead of making him 5 ft 4in -his actual height- let's make him 6' 3" and "instead of him having that dirty, raspy, Clint Eastwood feel, let's clean him up so the audience can connect with his sensitive side"
Now, this is not Hugh Jackman's fault. In all likelihood, when he accepted the role of Wolverine in the original X-men movie, about a decade ago, he probably had no idea of who this character really is. His agent probably called him up and said:
"hey Hugh...baby. Fox is doing a 'live action' version of the popular children's comic the X-mas... I'm sorry X-Men with Halle Berry. I think it'd be fun for you"
I can't blame Hugh Jackman for saying "yes" to doing a fun movie with Halle Berry. I can't blame him for Marvel being so financially broken that it had to sell its soul to Twentieth Century Fox to stay afloat. Likewise, I can't blame him for the stupid intern-turned-creative executive-turned development executive, who never read the comic series and has never written a script, but feels they know all there is to know about story structure, as a result of their tutelage under the last intern-turned-creative executive-turned-development executive, who was fired because they kept developing movies that suck.
Hugh, in his defense, did the best he job he could with the character Wolverine, but there's only so much he could do. Just like, no matter how good of an actor he is, (probably the best) Daniel Day-Lewis can't play the role of Peter Parker. He Just doesn't fit. We may watch him, we may like him, but the chances of Hugh Jackman being to Wolverine, what Heath Ledger was to The Joker are slim.
But after that speil, Hugh isn't the real problem with this movie, so much as the writers are (and they're probably the hopeless victims of some punk development exec). They took too many liberties with the movie that they didn't have to. For example, no one really knows the real relationship between Sabertooh and Wolverine. It's been heavily suggested that they're bothers, but it's also been suggested that Sabertooh is Wolverine's father. If the authors of the comic choose to keep it a mystery, they why would the screenwriter feel that they have the liberty do otherwise. They could have suggested that they were brothers, without the hokie line 'we're brothers and we have to look out for each other'.
I can go on and on about other examples of liberties taken in the movie, but I'm already looking enough like a geek (you know, the kind who stay locked in their mother's basement playing online mystical quest games with avatars named Quagor the Blue Magician)... But one can't help but look at how The Dark Knight was received and feel a little shafted by the lazy writing, that was probably the fault of someone at the studio people thinking they're omniscient story tellers.
Here, they essentially reduced the most complex and tortured characters (next to Batman) in comics to Hanna Montanna, and no matter how many times Wolverine says 'god damn' in the movie, it still isn't enough to elevate the movie beyond the mental capacity of a 12 year old. They did the same thing with Spiderman (remember Tobey Maguire's dance routine in the last installment).
To date, Blade II stands as the best film adaptation of any Marvel character and that's a shame, because they could've had a real winner with this one. Just do a Wikipedia search on Wolverine and you'll be blown away by how much there is to work with and potential to make Wolverine "the movie" the Marvel equivalent of the Dark Knight..
BTW: A friend of mine challenged me to come up with someone who would've made a better Wolverine than Hugh Jackman... I came up with Russell Crowe, Gerard Butler and (the winner, we agreed was) Karl Urban...