Berlin Film Review: Logan

[RandySF]

“Logan” doesn’t get lost in CGI overkill or annoyingly messy Tinker-Toy franchise plotting. It’s a wholehearted drama made with a shot language that looks nearly classical. It must be said, however, that the story often feels stitched together from other films, a quality made explicit when the characters watch an extended scene from “Shane” on TV. “Logan” isn’t as darkly exciting as “The Wolverine” was. With its hero suggesting a broken-down cousin to Mad Max, it’s like “The Road Warrior” meets “Shane” meets “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” (yes, there’s a “bad” Wolverine). But that turns out to be a recipe that brings the saga to a satisfying close. Just about every fan of the “Wolverine” series is likely to feel well-served, and you can do the box office math from there.

The best thing about “Logan” is that it’s one of those movies about a grown-up killer who becomes the mentor and protector of a child, yet it manages not to be cloying. The kid, in this case, is 11-year-old Laura (Dafne Keen), a dark-eyed urchin of silent ferocity who comes under Logan’s wing (or maybe I should say his blade-claw). Wolverine, we’re told, is one of the only mutants left. In “Logan,” they’ve faded away and become cultural relics, and that’s one of the sources of Logan’s weariness. He keeps Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), now 90, hidden on a rusted-out farm below the Mexican border, where Professor X is subject to brain seizures that paralyze everyone around him by making the air molecules pulsate with menace. But then Laura shows up, dumped into Logan’s life by a Mexican nurse (Elizabeth Rodriguez) from a local clinic. She’s a mysterious girl, who says nothing but carries herself with a confidence that’s unearthly. She’s like a version of the Feral Kid from “The Road Warrior.” You could also say that she’s a chip off the old blade.

Keen, in her movie debut, has the orbs of a staring bird and an air of preternatural awareness. She could be the junior sister of Rooney and Kate Mara, and that’s because she holds the screen with her solemnity. Logan agrees to drive her to Eden, a utopian refuge for mutants in North Dakota — though, as he discovers (in one of the film’s few funny gambits), Eden originated in the “X-Men” comics, which in Logan’s mind means that it has to be a made-up place. For most of the movie, he, Laura, and Professor X are on the run from Dr. Zander Rice (Richard E. Grant) and his goons. That’s the whole plot, but Mangold strikes a nice balance between road-movie ambling and eruptions of feral suspense.

It’s Jackman who holds “Logan” together and gives the film its glimmer of soul. He has been playing this role, more or less nonstop, for 18 years, but he seems startlingly not bored by it. Better still, he’s a more refined actor now than when he started, and in “Logan,” he gets to play something rare in comic-book cinema: a powerhouse of animal rage who is slowly, agonizingly slipping away. By the end of the movie, he gets his muttonchops back and reminds you, once more, of what’s great about this character — his hellbent quality, embodied in those flesh-ripping kills that are his way of making good on a mutant destiny he never asked for. No “X-Men” movie will ever be great (the material is too derivative), but Jackman, though he’s the Superman of the bunch, has gone deeper into the alienation than any other mutant in the series. The end of “Logan” is genuinely touching, as Jackman lets you feel the character’s strength and pain, and — finally — his release.



http://variety.com/2017/film/festivals/logan-review-berlin-film-festival-1201990143/

[DonCoquixote]

1. No X-Men movie will ever be great (the material is too derivative)

here is where this great review has one flaw; it insist on showing how many "intellectuals" have a snobbery against things that are science-fiction or comic book culture. One of the better moments in the movie (no spoilers) is where Logan actually discusses the difference between what is depicted in the common comic book and more realistic way things would actually happen. Yes, there is a lot of crap published by DC, Marvel, etc. however, part of the reason why comic books are making more and more of an impact in the common culture is because reality is gotten to the point where you need strong, absurd metaphors to describe it. I'm not just talking about the stuff Alan Moore has written, even though he does deserve a lot of praise he gets. But a day and age when Donald Trump can become president, and that is not automatically the most absurd facet of the election, or you really surprised that we look to comic books?

There is also the fact that by nature of being pop-culture, comic books can attack certain powerful people and ideas that otherwise more lofty types of art would not dare to. The X-Men have been analogies for everything from gay culture to bullied teens to terrorists, and resistance movements. It has lambasted the government "deep state operatives" that lo and behold, may not be sending sentinel robots to people's houses, but are sure working on perfecting their drones and hackers, as well as their assassins. it is really hard to overstate how important it is that we actually have a common framework an image describe the sorts of people that though they do not have superpowers are indeed active; you think Eric Prince would not be using Iron Man style armor or nano tech viruses if he could get his hands on them? are there not corporations every bit as sociopathic as the ones in the comic books? we know the only thing standing between some of the super villains in real life and some of the really deadly ones we read about in comic books is opportunity, and lo and behold, with every year, we find out that are real-life super villains are doing things that seemed every bit is impossible as a self we read about. fortunately, while some real-life superheroes may not be able to sprout claws, they can do one thing that every great superhero from Logan to Peter Parker does: to realize that with great power comes great responsibility, and that yes one move, one sacrifice can make the difference that saves the day.

However, as much is I am a bit of a highbrow snob myself at times, I can be the first to say that what some of the modern intellectual culture needs to do is stop looking for some "great novel" or "award-winning movie" to finally open the minds of the people. It's not just the fact that as the Oscars have shown, the people behind the curtain are just as derivative, just as cliché addicted as the supposedly lowbrow art is. It's already gotten to the point where you know who is supposed to win the Oscar, the Emmy, the Grammy, the Pulitzer Prize, and even when the occasional "Moonlight" slips in, the way the award is given just reinforces that the old gray eminences realize they have to let something slip by once in a while. If the Gray eminences really want to go ahead and keeping relevant, they need to stop reflexively attacking certain images, especially the ones adopted by the true outcast and rebels of the modern era, the geeks. Each passing generation is not only more and more cynical, but they are aware of why they should be cynical; they don't even need to bother to look behind the curtain to know that the great and powerful wizard is really just a lucky huckster. They know that while Trump may go ahead and curl noses today, the powers that be have something planned that will make Donald look as bland as oatmeal, and do twice the damage. Ivory towers, please learn to connect and reconnect with the outcast, with the rebel, with people who grew up thinking of themselves as mutants, hunted by a world that hates and fears them.

As Stan Lee would say "EXCELSIOR!"