Skip to main content

We've got ourselves an X-Men fan.

Logan
(2017)

(SPOILERS) I was tepid on Logan’s prospects, both commercially and artistically, but the acclaim that has greeted it appears to have proved me wrong on both counts. And yet, and this really isn’t sour grapes, as I’d have loved to agree with the raves… I don’t think it’s a great movie. I don’t even think it’s the best X-Men movie. It has the kernel of a great movie, sporadically it’s a great movie, and Hugh Jackman gives a great performance – and another that’s not so great – but its estimable aspects are rather levelled by the sheer, unwavering competence of director James Mangold. It certainly doesn’t “transcend the genre”.


Don’t get me wrong. Logan’s a good movie. But my appreciation of it is tempered by buts, of how it falls short of its best intentions… It’s entirely valid to aspire to classics when setting out your movie stall, but it particularly felt as if the makers were on tenuous ground here, almost to the point of mashup, with the references ad nauseam to the kind of movie it was like, from Unforgiven and Shane (and good God, do they overegg that pudding, to the point of inanity – it’s hardly a classic adaptation anyway) to Paper Moon. The former, in particular, does Logan no favours at all, as it instantly draws attention to the gulf in quality between their screenplays. There are a series of strong beats in the script from Mangold, Michael Green (the upcoming Alien: Covenant and Blade Runner 2049) and Scott Frank, but they’re no collective David Webb Peoples, and the end result bears similar structural issues to Frank’s earlier The Wolverine, the most pervasive being the failure to come up with a remotely worthy antagonist. That, and a less-than-spectacular finale (and in a final curtain such as this, it’s all about the finale).


So, on the positive side, the reconfiguration of the X-Men saga to a derelict, pre-apocalyptic 2029 in which mutants have all but died out thanks to Richard E Grant’s Dr Rice, and in which the increasingly sickly, toxified Logan (there’s a push-pull relationship with the advances of science here; on the one hand, medication keeps Charles from imperilling others, on the other, the name of advancement has washed up the Wolverine) cares for the increasingly frail, mentally absent Charles Xavier, is striking and arresting.


This is easily the most interesting Xavier has been on the big screen, a character haunted by his mistakes (a definite bonus to leave the Westchester Incident unvisualised) and the infirmity of the very faculty that set him above the rest; trying to bring a whiter-than-white character back down to a relatable level is no small task, but it’s achieved here in a compelling way, and Stewart, who can be wearisomely stoical in his roles, gives it his all. Although, and here’s the but: sure, go for a higher certificate, but don’t lob F-bombs around indiscriminately just because you can.


Logan’s the kind of character who would believably swear like a trooper, Charles just isn’t, and giving him a whole scene of f-ing and blinding feels like pandering, either to the actor or to an adolescent urge (Deadpool, of course, was an entire movie personifying an adolescent urge) to overindulge what hasn’t been seen in the series before; all that’s missing is Professor X ordering hookers and smoking a crack pipe. The real deal would have been showing the maturity to hold back when necessary, to go overboard only when it had most impact. Instead, there are occasions when the swearing and violence derive from the same kind of juvenile idea of “adult” material as Deadpool; now we can show titties! That’s why we have a scene where Charles does nothing but speak with a potty mouth, whether or not its germane to his character (sure, you can argue he’s a man at the end of his tether, but what you want is contrast with Logan, preserving an aspect of the character’s dignity, rather than everyone sounding like their vernacular has been punched up by David Mamet).


The violence too. Some of it is as giddily enervating as John Wick Chapter Two’s. The opening carjacking sequence is a masterpiece of building up to what we want to see: Logan unleashed. But this new-found taste for gore, like anything, quickly loses its lustre if every altercation is like that. The final sprint in the woods is well-enough handled, but the extreme splatter on display is already over-familiar by that point.


In between, there’s at least one other fine sequence, in which Logan valiantly struggles through a hotel to inject Charles with a suppressant, taking out immobile heavies on the way. And the whirling dervish of Laura/X-23 (Dafne Keen, who bears a passing resemblance to Lukas Hass circa Witness), going crazy on anyone and everyone also leads to some well-choreographed action. But here’s the thing. There’s a nagging feeling in each case that they could have been even better (perhaps that’s partly a consequence of some absurd and ridiculous buzz that compared the quality of filmmaking here to Fury Road), and between the rumbles, Mangold often appears to confuse languid pacing with character development; there just isn’t enough depth to the characterisation and storytelling to justify the longueurs, as strong as the main trio of performances are.


I expected the worst from teaming Logan up with a pint-sized sidekick, particularly an adamantine-clawed one, but thanks to Keen’s performance this is element is an unreserved success, avoiding the urge to sentimentalise as Laura’s presence rekindles Charles’ innate compassion and Logan’s grudging sense of duty and responsibility. There was a point where I feared, having spent so much of the movie mute, that Keen would reveal herself as not such a thespian after all when she began speaking, but the only bum notes struck are Laura wailing “Daddy!” as he dies (she doesn’t seem like the kind of kid to use that word, even if she feels that emotion – it might be Mangold tipping his hat to Aliens) and the remarkable memory Laura shows when spouting Shane by way of eulogy over Logan’s grave. The movie didn’t need the extended clip anyway, and this just cements that.


Other sequences and emotional beats don’t quite attain the heights they’re reaching for. They’re fine on paper but Mangold’s too workmanlike. The interlude at the farm is strong in theory, but it hasn’t yet been earned at this point, and the various elements brought to bear fail to make the murder of the family a satisfying (if that’s the word) horror to avenge. Much of that is down to the nature of the beast. Being the X-24. Having mostly avoid spoilers outside of trailers, I was unprepared for his introduction, and initially thought the anti-Logan might be an elaborate dream sequence. Certainly that, while not ideal, would have been preferable to the banality of yet another alter-ego villain. One that doesn’t even offer Jackman an acting challenge since all he is guttural rage (Superman III’s evil Supes, on the other hand, was the highlight of that particular affair). Yadda yadda the greatest enemy is yourself. Maybe, but only if presented in an interesting manner.


This is also where Unforgiven comparisons simply break down. The pieces are in place – the savage slaying of Logan’s dearest friend as a spur to vengeance – but the conveyer of this act carries no dramatic or emotional weight. Not even with the brain and brawn split with Grant. Now, Reg is great, but he’s entirely wasted in Logan, given nothing in the way of wit or even a hint of depth. About the only notable aspect of his presence is the manner in which Logan shoots him in the head in the middle of a ream of exposition. Admittedly, Unforgiven was Mark Millar’s premise for Old Man Logan, and Mangold probably rightly departed significantly from it (quite apart from issues of various other character rights), but what he didn’t find was a worthy foe for Logan’s last stand.


Of the rest of the cast, Boyd Holbrook provides a cocksure mocking tone as cybernetically enhanced head Reaver Pierce, and he’s a good enough actor to make his leading duties in The Predator something to rest easy about, but Pierce isn’t, when it comes to it, a goon for the ages.


And Stephen Merchant’s Caliban… Well, he’s okay. He isn’t much of an actor, Merchant. Take out the comedy and that’s blatantly obvious, but he gets by (it’s probably also why his best line is about being little more than a glorified truffle pig). What chafes rather is that Tómas Lemarquis was profoundly superior in his one scene in the uneven (and much-derided) X-Men: Apocalypse. In narrative terms, the kiddie mutants are a motley crew who really ought to have been in training up that mountain for just such an event as befalls them in the final reel. And distracting that the most formidable amongst them’s super skill appears to be grass weaving.


Thematically? Besides a serviceable meditation on regret and loss (when someone expiring actually says “So this is what it feels like”, you aren’t dealing with better than serviceable)? Did Fox have an insight into the election outcome? Was the fix in? How else to explain the Trump’s America border wall with Mexico, and Canada seen as an undisputed safe haven? There are also derivative elements such as drones used to (indirectly) pick off innocents. The running with the child experimentation thing is interesting, however. Obviously, it runs deep with the Wolverine saga anyway, but off the back of Stranger Things it feels like there’s a resurgent theme of the dark and deadly abuses inflicted by an establishment knowing no bounds. Much has been made of the intradiegetic aspect of the X-Men comic books appearing in the story, but it didn’t really do much for me; are you undercutting the mythology of a character or re-mythologising him? Make a decision. Either way, you need a director with the chops to underline the element through artistry.


I suppose you can never say never again with these kinds of movies. They could easily resuscitate Jackman from the grave if the deal was sweet enough, or set him in an earlier time, and there are bound to be offers due to the picture’s unqualified financial success, but he’d be wise to stick to his guns. He’s a fine actor who has made much of not that interesting (as in, to justify a series of solo vehicles) character. I’m sure that’s heresy to some, but Wolverine/Logan seems to me to be a character better in silhouette than attempting to flesh out, and that we’ve got this far is all down to Hugh. It’s just a shame that the kind of farewell catharsis that should have been is rather undermined by a screenplay that fumbles the final hurdle; nothing amps up or unfolds quite as effectively as it should, is quite as tragic as it might be. Which is frustrating, as it comes close. So, Logan is the best of the solo Wolverine vehicles, but it lingers some way behind First Class and Days of Future Past in the pantheon. What it does leave me wondering is how long this newly-ignited capacity for swearing, sex and splatter in comic book movies will last before makers realise the tail is wagging the dog.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

So you want me to be half-monk, half-hitman.

Casino Royale (2006)
(SPOILERS) Despite the doubts and trepidation from devotees (too blonde, uncouth etc.) that greeted Daniel Craig’s casting as Bond, and the highly cynical and low-inspiration route taken by Eon in looking to Jason Bourne's example to reboot a series that had reached a nadir with Die Another Day, Casino Royale ends up getting an enormous amount right. If anything, its failure is that it doesn’t push far enough, so successful is it in disarming itself of the overblown set pieces and perfunctory plotting that characterise the series (even at its best), elements that would resurge with unabated gusto in subsequent Craig excursions.

For the majority of its first two hours, Casino Royale is top-flight entertainment, with returning director Martin Campbell managing to exceed his excellent work reformatting Bond for the ‘90s. That the weakest sequence (still good, mind) prior to the finale is a traditional “big” (but not too big) action set piece involving an attempt to…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

You guys sure like watermelon.

The Irishman aka I Heard You Paint Houses (2019)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps, if Martin Scorsese hadn’t been so opposed to the idea of Marvel movies constituting cinema, The Irishman would have been a better film. It’s a decent film, assuredly. A respectable film, definitely. But it’s very far from being classic. And a significant part of that is down to the usually assured director fumbling the execution. Or rather, the realisation. I don’t know what kind of crazy pills the ranks of revered critics have been taking so as to recite as one the mantra that you quickly get used to the de-aging effects so intrinsic to its telling – as Empire magazine put it, “you soon… fuggadaboutit” – but you don’t. There was no point during The Irishman that I was other than entirely, regrettably conscious that a 75-year-old man was playing the title character. Except when he was playing a 75-year-old man.

I'm reliable, I'm a very good listener, and I'm extremely funny.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I wrote my 23 to see in 2019, I speculated that James Cameron might be purposefully giving his hand-me-downs to lesser talents because he hubristically didn’t want anyone making a movie that was within a spit of the proficiency we’ve come to expect from him. Certainly, Robert Rodriguez and Tim Miller are leagues beneath Kathryn Bigelow, Jimbo’s former spouse and director of his Strange Days screenplay. Miller’s no slouch when it comes to action – which is what these movies are all about, let’s face it – but neither is he a craftsman, so all those reviews attesting that Terminator: Dark Fate is the best in the franchise since Terminator 2: Judgment Day may be right, but there’s a considerable gulf between the first sequel (which I’m not that big a fan of) and this retcon sequel to that sequel.

This popularity of yours. Is there a trick to it?

The Two Popes (2019)
(SPOILERS) Ricky Gervais’ Golden Globes joke, in which he dropped The Two Popes onto a list of the year’s films about paedophiles, rather preceded the picture’s Oscar prospects (three nominations), but also rather encapsulated the conversation currently synonymous with the forever tainted Roman Catholic church; it’s the first thing anyone thinks of. And let’s face it, Jonathan Pryce’s unamused response to the gag could have been similarly reserved for the fate of his respected but neglected film. More people will have heard Ricky’s joke than will surely ever see the movie. Which, aside from a couple of solid lead performances, probably isn’t such an omission.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.

Look, the last time I was told the Germans had gone, it didn't end well.

1917 (2019)
(SPOILERS) When I first heard the premise of Sam Mendes’ Oscar-bait World War I movie – co-produced by Amblin Partners, as Spielberg just loves his sentimental war carnage – my first response was that it sounded highly contrived, and that I’d like to know how, precisely, the story Mendes’ granddad told him would bear any relation to the events he’d be depicting. And just why he felt it would be appropriate to honour his relative’s memory via a one-shot gimmick. None of that has gone away on seeing the film. It’s a technical marvel, and Roger Deakins’ cinematography is, as you’d expect, superlative, but that mastery rather underlines that 1917 is all technique, that when it’s over and you get a chance to draw your breath, the experience feels a little hollow, a little cynical and highly calculated, and leaves you wondering what, if anything, Mendes was really trying to achieve, beyond an edge-of-the-seat (near enough) first-person actioner.