Review: Logan (second-pass / spoilers)

Logan (second-pass / SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 137 mins / Dir. James Mangold / Trailer



This is your spoiler-break. I mean, there's a thing up there which says spoilers, and any link which brought you here probably warned of them too, but trust me - there are some massive, honking-great plot spoilers after the break, and not like neat-plot-synposis ones, just discussion of the themes and events which will assume you've seen the film (and also be reasonably familiar with the other X-Men movies, as well). Anyway, sometimes an RSS-reader or social media link will pull through content from the beginning of the post. This paragraph is to get around that chunk containing spoilers. That's how considerate I am. If you came over here looking for spoiler-free words about Logan, my first-pass review should be what you're after.

Anyway, that should be enough stalling.
Proceed with caution…



Still here? Smashing. Now, as much as I love James Mangold's Logan (and I do), I have to confess that the film's trump card of Finality™ is nerfed slightly (for me at least) by the unasked question '…which timeline does this all take place in?'. The crescendo of a story doesn't have as much impact if you're not sure which story is actually being wrapped up. Notwithstanding the series' apparent inability to play by rules laid down in previous installments, Days of Future Past saw an active and deliberate move to set the cinematic course of events into a new and straight line. And it did so rather beautifully, I'll gladly admit.

The problem with continuity in the series seems to be with time itself, when dates are stamped on things and even when they're just implied. Back in 2000, the first X-Men movie opened with a scene set during the Second World War, captioned appropriately with "Poland 1944". The pinpointing makes absolute sense of course, for that's the precise historical moment we're seeing. When the film flips into the 'contemporary' setting, we get a location-tag accompanied by "the not to distant future". Which again, is fine as it avoids dating the film by specifying it as "2000".



In fact, the action taking place in the 'current' strand of most X-Men movies is usually alluded to be in the near and vague future. Yet from a retrospective point-of-view, the series often ties the story in to real-world events, from Origins: Wolverine's alternative-view of the Three Mile Island meltdown in 1979, to First Class's retooling of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.



Now, leaving aside the fact that Future Past essentially erased the former (and all of the previously told stories set after 1973 for that matter), there was still only an ambiguous link between the 'present day' or futuristic stories being told, and those framed in an historical context. But in Days of Future Past, something curious happened. Kitty Pryde sent the consciousness of Wolverine back into his 1973 body, to avert the crisis they were now permanently trying to escape. And in the midst of some fairly heavyweight exposition, she let slip that the 'current' year was around 2023:

"For the rest of us, it'll be the only history that we know. It'll be like the last fifty years never happened." ~ Kitty Pryde.

Obviously 'fifty years' was a generalisation on her part, but it's going to be around that, and almost certainly not forty-five or fifty-five. So around 2023, then.



…and if Wolverine jumps back fifty years, it stands to all reason that once his mission's accomplished (and/or he's skewered and dumped in a river, whichever comes first) he'd zap forward fifty years in return. Which is what we see in the film's final moments, as our hairy-hero awakes in Charles Xavier's school in Westchester in the newly created timeline, his old friends and acquaintences still alive, having never perished in the first place. All is right with the world, and this is where we leave the characters. In 2023.

Skipping forward to the events of Logan, we don't get an on-screen caption so it's down to the screenplay to fill in the blanks for the audience. The things we know are that there have been no new Mutants born "in the last twenty five years". Through Transigen, Alkali and various shell-companies, the nefarious Dr Rice has helped implement a worldwide program of genetically-modified crops (corn-starch, to be precise) to prevent naturally occurring Mutants (and very probably weaken existing ones in the process), whilst also co-ordinating further generations of the Weapon X program, to precisely harness mutations for military/intelligence purposes. Oh, and in case you were wondering, it's 2029.

"…It's 2029, why are we still talking about Mutants?" ~ Man on Radio In Logan's Car.

Which means while Laura and presumably the rest of the X-23 program subjects were born in 2018 (Charles tells Logan at one point that "She's 11 and I'm fucking 90"), there'd have been no 'wild' Mutants born since 2004. Dr Rice's program has already been underway for at least two decades by the time Logan returns to Xavier's school in 2023. The heroes went through all that effort to avert the hard-genocide of Bolivar Trask's Sentinels, only to find themselves on the receiving end of a more insidious, soft variety, by eating The Wrong Cornflakes™.

All of this also means that when Logan wakes up and looks around the corridors of the once-again buzzing school, the youngest student there should be around 19, right? Since it's 2023 and the last Mutants were born in 2004?



Now those figures may be fleeting cast-members in the shots, but unless their particular super-powers involve not being allowed on the rides at theme parks, they're kind of short for 19yr olds, don'tcha think?

Given that some of the history mentioned in Logan contradicts what we've already seen in the 'fixed' continuity, one throwaway line from a nameless radio presenter suggests that this newest film doesn't take place in the established timeline at all. Logan isn't 'the' final chapter, it's a final chapter. Of a story we haven't actually been told yet.

Although Jackman has said in various places that this will be his last outing as Logan/Wolverine, there's no reason why more stories can't be told with the 'legacy' cast, just set earlier in the chronology. And there's no reason why Jackman couldn't return, short of just being tired of playing the role. We already have no real idea what occurred in the six years between the end of Days of Future Past and Logan. And when has X-continuity ever bothered Fox, anyway? They've already broken it to the point where it's no longer necessary for making a fantastic movie, as James Mangold has shown.

All I'm saying is, let's not write off Weapon X just yet…

But leaving all that aside, I love that the film is about growing old and dealing with guilt. It's heavily implied (but not specified either way*¹) that either Charles or Logan are responsible for the death of their fellow Mutants at the School for Gifted Youngsters. Here, X-24 represents Logan's guilt over all the bad things he's done, while X-23 represents his guilt over all the good he never got round to.

• So in this film, Wolverine ends up protecting a clone-Wolverine from a clone-Wolverine, who kills Xavier then goes on to kill Wolverine, before being killed by clone-Wolverine. And if that doesn't crystallise existential-guilt, I don't know what does…

[ UPDATE: 06 MAR 2017 ]

So after writing, posting, editing, re-editing and sleeping on the above, another thing occurred to me. Regarding the 'no Mutants born since 2004' claim, there is of course the question of the children that Logan and Laura find at the Eden outpost in North Dakota. They've clearly been born in the intervening years, as the film illustrates. There are two possibilities for their previously unknown existence:

1) These are naturally occurring Mutants who've found their own way to Eden. Despite the measures put in place by Dr Rice's genetically modified cornstarch, life has, to quote Ian Malcolm, found a way. Coded messages within the in-universe X-Men comics, hidden in plain sight, have had the desired effect and enabled the gathering of new, young Mutants.

2) These children are escapees from various stages of Dr Rice's continuing Weapon X project. IIRC, it's stated in the film that Laura's X-23 generation consisted of ten children. There are more than that at Eden, and they're of varying ages (plus, it's unlikely that all of her classmates escaped to safety). It's also notable that many of them appear to have not yet reached adolescence, the point where mutations traditionally begin to reveal themselves, even though we see the children using their powers. This would suggest an artificially accelerated mutation, typical of a medical or weapons-research program. Additionally, the children at Eden have no parents or guardians present; it's unlikely to be the case that the biological parents of all these Mutants would abandon their offspring in the wilds of Dakota. Given Laura's circumstances, it's more probable that these children have escaped or been smuggled out at separate points until a plan could be formulated for their safety*².

Irrespective of their origin, Charles Xavier has only been in telepathic contact with one of these Mutants: Laura. If The Westchester Incident only occurred a year before the events of Logan, that still leaves a significant amount of dead-air time beforehand. Has he been unaware of the others' presence because of his weakened state, because of his reverse-Cerebro farm-bunker, or because the children were somehow shielded at the Transigen headquarters?

Either way, it's Logan himself who tells Charles that 'no Mutants have been born in twenty five years', and the point isn't argued save for Laura. And as they're unaware of the new generation, the line itself is incongruous with having children in their early teens at Westchester a mere six years earlier.
The main point still stands, I think Logan happens in an alternative timeline.

[ /UPDATE ]

---

Other (slightly more flippant) questions I have after watching the movie again:

• Is Wolverine's entire skeleton coated in Adamantium like in the old continuity, or does he only have the implanted claws now? Because Laura's meant to be based on him, and her notes just say 'implants', and you couldn't very well coat the bones of a child who's still growing, using the world's strongest metal now could you? She'd be gradually crushed by her own imposed-superpower. That'd be a dark spin-off.

• How come the X-Men universe has X-Men toys and comics which are exactly the same as the audience-universe X-Men toys and comics? For most of these movies, the mutants have been a thinly-veiled metaphor for the LGBT community, constantly teetering on the edge of public mistrust and often the victims of outright prejudice. Yet in 2029 the general consensus has turned (and long before that point, remember) to "fuck it, let's make a 12" action figure of the most butch, murdery actual real-life Mutant, but wearing this yellow spandex outfit. That seems appropriate".

• How come Gabriela's phone doesn't have an unlock-code? She's already hidden this crucial story-prop incredibly badly so that Logan can find it (yet apparently not so badly that her murderers could get to it and destroy all the evidence first), then he just pops it on and starts watching the conveniently edited secret-documentary. And then when the power dies (I don't know about your mobile, but my phone bugs the shit out of me for about ten minutes rather than just flashing up a battery-icon then switching off within a second) and Logan recharges the phone (nice to see USB cables still ubiquitous in 2029), it just pops back on ready to resume play. No startup sequence, no unlock-code or welcome screen. And don't get me started on Logan's own iPhone 6.

• Also, how come Logan's hair and beard grow back instantly if they're sheared off by an atomic explosion, but when six mischievous urchins decide to give him a trim, they just stay that way? Is super-hairdressing their mutation?




Them X-Men films.



If you're going to see it at all, yes.



I think so.



It'll be a high water-mark.



Maybe not, but let's talk about that…



Yep.
…ish.
So, yep.



Level 2: This film's got Boyd Holbrook in it, and he was in Run All Night and A Walk Among The Tombstones alongside Liam 'Qui-Gon' Neeson.





*¹ Xavier's "What did you do?" line, and Logan's reticence implies that the latter could have wiped out the students in an attack (which would tie in with the Old Man Logan comic-book, upon which this film is loosely based). But Xavier's later confession of "I did a terrible thing" suggests the students and teachers could have been killed during one of his seizures. That said, we hear a radio report stating that it's been "one year" since the Westchester incident which injured hundreds but had only six fatalities. Whether the reported deaths included Mutants or not isn't clarified. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Although let's not forget that the author(s) of the in-universe X-Men comics seem to know all about safe-havens and grand-plans, the likes of which even Professor X himself is unaware. I'm sure that'll be covered in the potential New Mutants spin-off, by which time they'll probably have changed the continuity again... ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Logan (spoiler-free)

Logan (first-pass / SPOILER-FREE)
Cert: 15 / 137 mins / Dir. James Mangold / Trailer



Okay, the sunset glinting behind Adamantium claws on the poster may not be the most subtle of messages, but it's clear from the marketing-campaign for Logan that Fox wanted to make a very different type of movie this time. Gone are the pouting, dynamic, crowded montage shots and lens-flared logos; here's a tired old man and a single word in Helvetica Black. There'll be less fuss this time. And so, around thirty of the faithful gathered in Screen 1 for the midnight-mass of a simpler sermon*¹.

And a different type of movie was, indeed, what we got. It's still very Wolverine™, but with far less of an X-Men feel (despite being inextricably linked and frequently referenced). James Mangold is at the helm again, and the film has more weight and consequence than his Samurai homage, and is far angrier than Origins as a result. The year is 2029*² and mutants as we know them appear to be all but extinct. Logan is lying low in Mexico, growing old and sick himself while nursing a severely depleted Charles Xavier, who is now prone to seizures which are a danger to himself and everyone around him. And into their lives is thrust a young girl; scared, wild and a complete liability. Her past is a secret that Xavier and Wolverine will have to unlock if there's to be any hope for the future. To say more would be too much for this first-pass*³.

Hugh Jackman's on reliably strong form, lower on the quips this time around and higher on the actual drama. Similarly amplified is Patrick Stewart, adding more depth to his existing character whenever Xavier isn't 'medicated to a safe distance'. And I'd like to say that young Dafne Keen steals the show as Laura, but short of her action scenes (of which there are plenty), she ends up jostling for position with her co-leads. Don't get me wrong, she's great, but she isn't given the room to shine until later in the film (despite being the most furious thing in it from Act I).

And what Wolverine lacks in one-liners, he makes up for blade-work. As was noted in the trade papers around this time last year, lessons were learned from Deadpool in that you can make a comic-book movie ridiculously violent and still sell enough tickets to justify the exercise commercially. It's never lingering or too exploitative, but if you've wondered what it would look like to see a gang-member or mercenary have Adamantium claws skewering their heads? Look no further. Look no further many times, in fact. The film earns is 15-certificate in the first ten minutes and keeps it proudly on display thereafter. It's probably not unfair to say that this is the Wolverine movie fans have been waiting for, for the last seventeen years or so…

The business-end:

• Is there a Wilhelm Scream? …see below.
• Is there a Stan Lee cameo? No.
• Is there a mid-credits scene? No.
• Is there a post-credits scene? No.

I told you it was different…

Well y'know, Wolverine-type movies.



If you're going to see it at all, see it big.



I think so.
Although I'll be watching it again, just to check.



In this series, it may well be.



I shouldn't imagine so.



You know that thing when you see "AAIIEEE!" written in a comic-book and that's the speech-bubble equivalent of a Wilhelm Scream? Well it is, and that's in this film. So yes.



Level 2: This film's got that Richard E. Grant in it, and he was in that Withnail And I with Ralph 'Ric Olié' Brown…





*¹ While an audience of around thirty doesn't sound like a lot (and indeed isn't), we can take comfort in the fact that it at least triples the footfall for last year's midnight-showing of Apocalypse, even if that was a turnout which the film kind of deserved. Also working in the film's favour tonight was Fox's scheduling-gimmick. This wasn't actually a midnight screening, but a one at twenty three minutes past ten. As in 10:23. As in X23, in reference to one of the characters in the film. Although by the time we'd enjoyed the requisite amount of adverts, trailers and adverts, it was more like X49, to be fair. Still, I mustn't grumble about being able to do my late-night cinema viewing at a slightly more sociable time. ^{[ BACK ]}

*² There are self-driving cargo-containers in the 2029, but Logan's got an iPhone 6 and people are still vaping. Sometimes it's best not to question the future too intensely. ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Yes, unlike Apocalypse, I'm actually planning on seeing this again, at which point there will be spoiler-ific words. It's not like I'm sworn off Apocalypse, I just haven't bothered watching it since that first time. Waiting for the BluRay to come down to under a tenner, by which time I might have forgotten how problematic the film is… ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: X-Men - Days of Future Past

X-Men: Days Of Future Past (third-pass)
Cert: 12A / 131 mins / Dir. Bryan Singer / Trailer



And so, after a twenty-or-so minute interval spent chatting to the cinema staff about the apparent diminishing returns of midnight-showings (and certainly multiple-movie-marathons), it was time for a catch-up with 2014's Days of Future Past; the X-Men movie where everything changes, and it becomes very apparent that First Class sprinted over existing continuity*¹ because it was the foundation for this movie; the one that would establish a new set of ground rules for the franchise…

Although it's the second film in the 'new' series, DoFP is the first to show both the young and old iterations of the X-Men in the same movie; sort of like the Star Trek: Geneations of the saga. We open in a bleak dystopian future where it's always (apparently) night-time, and the X-Men are fleeing from hidden base to hidden base by means of telepathy, teleportation and time-travel. Yeah, it's a big ask for the first ten minutes of a story, but it's also where 90% of the narrative exposition is parked; a very wordy setup for Wolverine waking up in 1973 and having a shaggy-haired, flared-trousered adventure.

As a quick detour to my favourite subject, this film sees the long-awaited return of Bryan Singer on directorial duties, and it's great to have Ian McKellen back as Magneto in the 'future' segment. Although you'd think that he'd be putting on an Irish accent for the camera, for continuity's sake, at least. That said, it's also worth noting that Fassbender's younger version of the same mutant is now sporting a far more British™-sounding tone. He still struggles with it from time to time, but I told you he can do it when he needs to…

Elsewhere we get Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique being more of the gymnastic killing machine we're used to from Rebecca Romijn's performance in the 'old' movies, and of course this film sees the introduction of Quicksilver. Evan Peter's portrayal is so much more interesting and likeable than his MCU counterpart, but his over-acting is so much more annoying at the same time. Curiously, there's no mention of Scarlet Witch in the X-verse, even though Fox could have used that character too, under their licensing agreement with Marvel. Given that the version of Quicksilver we see here is far closer to the canon of the comics in terms of origin, it'll be interesting to see if any move is made to introduce his telekinetic sister at some point in the future (quick digression: Why does the super-fast mutant put his headphones in place before the kitchen-fight scene? The implication is that Time In A Bottle is the laidback soundtrack to his kinetic mayhem, but any music playing through his personal stereo would be slowed down just like everything else in the room, wouldn't it? Unless he's managed to rig his walkman to play at 100x speed of course, in which case he could only use it when his powers were engaged. It doesn't seem practical, either way).

This is also the film which shows a series of autopsy-photos to wordlessly tell the audience that many of the characters we met in the previous movie won't be returning, in a move which is almost as insulting as Alien³ writing out Newt and Hicks before the dust has settled on the opening credits.

Despite my grumbling, I do love DoFP. The writing around the soft-reboot of the timeline is positively surgical in deciding what it does and doesn't want to keep, with a family-reunion finale that feels like it could be a happily-ever-after insert for its legacy-cast. But Xavier's closing speech feels a little too much like Sarah Connor's from Terminator 2; a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card tucked up the sleeve for future use which is shorthand for "…and we'll probably to this again in five years when we've written ourselves into another corner."

Days of Future Past is a much more confident film than its predecessor, given how outlandish and convoluted the plotting is. It's also by far the most ambitious of the X-Men movies, and probably the most satisfying for it…

The previous X-Men movies, and the sort of headaches caused by the flippant causality of the Terminator series.



If you get the chance, yes.



It does.
Whether it should is a much longer debate, though.



Not necessarily the best, but definitely 'up there'.



Nah.



Didn't hear one.



Level 1: Behind the camera, writer producer Simon Kinberg also has his name attached to Star Wars Rebels, as well as upcoming movies in the saga and anthology lines.





*¹ Or what little there was of it, admittedly...

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Green Room

Green Room
Cert: 18 / 95 mins / Dir. Jeremy Saulnier / Trailer



Writer/director Jeremy Saulnier's anticipated follow-up to disingquiet revenge thriller Blue Ruin gets off to a similarly low-key start, with a colour-palette stripped of all warmth and with a faint air of restless dissatisfaction. And that's the way it'll stay throughout this nihilistic road-trip movie...

Young garage-punk band, The Ain't Rights are gigging their way across America, trying to build enough funds on the way to pay for some studio time. An interviewer who owes them a favour sets them up with a show in backwater Oregon, which turns out to be a neo-Nazi hangout. When the group witness a murder after their set, it becomes apparent that the venue's owner has no problem in ensuring they won't tell anyone about what they've seen.

Anton Yelchin and Alia Shawkat quickly take the lead as the band's two primary members, their affectation of post-modern lethargy giving way to adrenalised naivety as Patrick Stewart roams around outside giving orders*¹ to his own private army of shaven-headed goons. This will get messy. It should also be said that this film is an 18 certifcate for a reason. The BBFC title card warns of "strong bloody violence, gore" and that's not an exaggeration. Saulnier doesn't rely on the effects and they're fairly sporadically used, but when it's time to release the dogs (literally as well as metaphorically), he doesn't hold back.

The strongest point in the film's favour is that it doesn't build to the climactic showdown which any other movie would go for. Instead we get a relentlessly grim dusk-'til-dawn tale of uncertain survival horror where all bets are off when it comes to who'll see the credits roll. As a story, Green Room has all the urgency of Blue Ruin, but not the emotional desperation. As a result, it doesn't feel as focused as its predecessor. Although as cinematic odes to punk go, I suspect that's all entirely intentional.

For anyone who's winced and face-palmed throughout a 'music based' movie like Begin Again, Green Room is the dirty, overdriven antidote...

Loses a point for mumbled dialogue, though. Come on sound-department, it's not difficult.



Blue Ruin, maybe even a bit of Hostel (although nowhere near as exploitative, obviously).



The shootings and stabbings will look meatier on the big screen, but it's not essential.



It does.



Cast, possibly; director, not quite.



I won't.



There isn't.



Level 1: Ironically enough, the sound department for this film (yeah, the one I've just had a pop at) features Justine Baker and Tyler Newhouse, both of whom worked on the audio for The Force Awakens.



*¹ With, it has to be said, an accent that comes with a self-deprecating sub-heading of "New York • London • Huddersfield". It's never at Colin Farrell-level, but I was having a hard time working out if his character had moved to the States from the skinhead scene in the UK, or he just had a multiple-personality disorder…

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.