The thing I don't like about the first two X-men is they don't feel like comic book movies, like spiderman does, they feel like art house movies.
To me, the first two films were a brillaint mix of comic book and art house, which is exactly why I loved them.
"Spider-Man" is probably the most perfect realization of the comic book feel on screen, I will admit. And, with only a couple of exceptions ("It's you who is out, Gobby. Out of your mind!"), this is a good thing. But Singer's "X-Men" films are something different, and quite special. The raised the bar for the genre, and demonstrated superhero stories need not just be stories for 12-year olds about guys hitting each other. I can't agree that they're "self-important." There is a difference between self-importance and having something to say. I understand the common argument people have "I go to movies to escape", but for me, every day life is mind numbing that a movie that's actually about something IS an escape. If "X-men: The Last Stand" is more like the comics than Singer's films are, then, in my opinion, Singer's films are better than the comic books. And really, there is just as much pontificating in the third film. It's just not backed up with the thoughtfulness or or emotion of the first two.
I disagree with the idea that there is, or should be, a specific "feel" that inherently goes with all comic book films.
But that is really just one opinion, and while I don't agree with Spriggan, I do see the validity of his point. There is something to be said for goofy fun in comic book movies. This is why I will always have a fondness for "Batman Forever". Hokey as it was, it was the Batman I grew up on, the Batman movie I imagined when I was a kid ("Batman & Robin" was not).
That is why I feel it's best when there is variety in the types of comic book films. I would be miserable if they were all as vacuous and lightweight as "Fantastic Four" (which is actually mildly fun it's own dumb way), but they don't all have to be dark and brooding, either.