My Thoughts on “Logan”

Something something no posts for a week, something something busy…

Anyways, I saw Logan this past Tuesday and I’m gonna talk about it, so buckle up.

In the year 2029, the world’s mutant population has dropped significantly. A past-his-prime Logan works as a chauffeur and, along with the albino mutant Caliban, takes care of a sick and senile Professor X. His now-bleak existence is upended when Laura, a young mutant with powers similar to Logan’s, is placed in their care and the robo-enhanced enforcers of a shady corporation arrive on their doorstep looking for her.

Logan’s tone and setting is a welcome one for the X-Men series, and the superhero genre as a whole. In the midst of a lot of, well, noise, we have a little quiet. The decision to not outright connect the film to previous X-Men films, or reveal just where the heck in continuity the story takes place, turns out to be a great one, and this is coming from someone who loves finding those kind of threads between films. I think it shows how important it was to James Mangold and Hugh Jackman to tell this tense, emotional tale properly, without the constraint of continuity or having to worry about setting up a future film or any of that jazz. This is a film about a mutant named Logan and his struggle to find meaning in a life he doesn’t want to live. It’s not one, insignificant cog in a larger franchise. It’s its own thang.

The film’s greatest strength is that it doesn’t hold back, violence-wise and emotionally. Just as suckers on screen get a claw pierced through their heart, you may also end up feeling like a sucker who got a claw pierced through your heart. My point (heh, claw puns) is, the film feels real. It doesn’t try to glisten up the future; things look relatively similar to how they do here in 2017. It doesn’t cut away from the more grisly acts of violence; we see them. We see them, alright. It doesn’t portray Logan, Xavier or any of the other characters as completely invulnerable; they’re as vulnerable as we would be in their situation (except that, I don’t know about you, but I don’t have superpowers).  Though their core stories are similar, this is what really sets Logan apart from The Wolverine (a movie which, for the record, I think is underrated). The Wolverine had a lot of “padding.” Logan shows things as they are.

Logan’s greatest weakness comes in the pacing. There almost seems to be two climaxes, each emotional and intense, each with the same boss, and each wrap up on half of the story. The first half is great. Fantastic, even! The second half? Good, but not nearly as good or compelling as the first, at least until its climax. There’s also the issue of drawn-out conflicts, and how Logan doesn’t decide to “accept the call” until the second half. If the film could’ve found a way to tighten things up a bit, and make the two halves of the story into one.

As for my thoughts on the acting, I’ll say what I said in my Letterboxd review: Jackman and Stewart give their best performances in the franchise, saving the best for last. Dafne Keen gives a great first impression. Stephen Merchant is Stephen Merchant but in the best way possible. Boyd Holbrook was better than I expected, and Richard E. Grant, despite being a part of one of my favourite moments in the film, just isn't on screen long enough to be really memorable or threatening.

To wrap things up, Logan is a satisfying, though far from perfect, end to Hugh Jackman’s run as Wolverine, and I think James Mangold has proven himself to be the director who understands the character best.

Now, FOX, do us a favour. Don’t immediately launch into a campaign to find the next Wolverine. Worry about that in a year or something. Just let this simmer, mmkay? Please?

Ugggh. I feel like I need to lighten the mood now.

 

 

Noah