Batman-Online.com

This is getting very positive reviews so far. I think smaller, more experimental superhero films like Logan and Deadpool are the way to go for the Fox Marvel franchise. The main X-Men series is showing its age now – personally, I think the entire superhero genre is starting to feel stale in the current surfeit of 'shared universes' – so a few more idiosyncratic and less formulaic standalone films will make for a welcome change.

Anyone planning to check this out?

I've lost complete interest in the overrated X-Men franchise after watching The Wolverine, and judging by the look of Logan, it won't inspire me to come back any time soon.

Many fans have been waiting since 2000 to see Jackman wear some variation of the classic Wolverine costume. Spoilers have now leaked online regarding whether or not he finally wears it in Logan. And the answer is.... SPOILERS he doesn't. Hopefully Fox will eventually give us a reboot that doesn't shy away from the iconography of the source material. A lot of people are saying Jackman will be an impossible act to follow. But really, the next Wolverine only has to don the mask and he'll already be closer to the comic book Logan. No disrespect to Jackman, who's done a great job with the material he's been given. But it's absurd that he's now played the role in seven movies (nine, if you count cameos) spanning 17 years and he hasn't once worn any variation of his iconic mask. END SPOILERS.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/x-men/logan/spoilers-does-hugh-jackman-finally-don-the-classic-yellow-costume-in-a149044

I'm sure I'll check it out.

I'm honestly not all that excited about the plot, nor do the villains interest me whatsoever (unless Liev Schreiber's Sabretooth re-appears again ... which is a long shot!), but the hard R is promising, and having seen all the X-Men films in the theaters, along with LOGAN being Jackman's farewell to Wolverine, it truly is the end of an era. Fox's X-Men films certainly have high points, and their fair share of low points, but thru it all, I've always felt that Hugh Jackman's portrayal of Wolverine was consistently good, and his enthusiasm for the character always apparent.

It's unfortunate that Jackman's Wolverine never gets into the costume, but on the plus side, Jackman can leave the role knowing he arguably defined that character for a entire generation. As far as the film itself goes, I'm sure "Logan" will be fine. I didn't think Mangold did a terrible job on the last Wolverine movie and this one seems to be allowed to be divorced from, evidently, everything that's come before, so that right there gives it some leeway in being a good one off swan song.

Having said that, and considering the circumstances, Hugh Jackman's participation in LOGAN does make me think of Sean Connery in "Never say Never". Just a little bit.

Just got back from checking out LOGAN earlier tonight.

Welllll, for me, It's the kind of movie you walk out of and then don't say anything. It's uncomfortable and brutal on an emotional level. These are good things. The film was MUCH darker in tone than that of any previous FOX X-films, and it was also very consistent in it's, as opposed to other X-Men movies, small focused scale. In addition, LOGAN also, without giving too much away from those who wants to check it out for themselves, takes heavily from Western tropes and the Gunfighter who's been played up as the "hero" in dime novels is a pretty stock theme. That's Logan in this film. Here he is the Killer that people wrote comics about and said he was a hero, while he himself is very cynical about his heroic portrayal in this universe's X-Men comics (Wolverine being so dismissive about comics was initially troublesome, however I could imagine the character of Wolverine being just that to be perfectly honest if we're going with a quasi Kingdom Come take), and remains pessimistic about pretty much everything.

But at the end Logan ultimately proves to be the hero everyone thought he could be.

As far as the villains, I really didn't have a whole lot of interest in the Reavers, and found them rather, I guess, generic. Which may be the entire point. As the idea behind them is essentially that they can make humans like machines: good little obedient drones that will be smart when you require it and never question orders. And to further illustrate this, the Reavers themselves, are part mechanical, with quite a number of them completely fail to recognize that their product is not what they thought it would be. Also, I've read articles about people trying to figure out the timeline and all, but I really would rather choose to view this on the same level like that of Connery's final bow as James Bond in "Never Say Never". An alternate reality take like that of Dark Knight Returns or Kingdom Come that gives us something interesting, rather than something that's actually IN continuity with the Foxverse timeline. Which is a mess, but LOGAN would effectively put a dark cloud over any victory that would come with the planned "Dark Phoenix Saga Take 2", and anything beyond that! Having Wolverine help prevent a dark future in "Days of Future Past" only for it to happen anyways 6 years later is very ... well let's just be clear here, sh*tty. On the plus side, I did like the low-tone future aspects. It's set about 12 years from now, but mostly we just see the occasional holographic display and things keep on being more or less the same. The cybernetics of the Reavers make sense in context and aren't a big thing. The robotrucks are just there. It's all obfuscated and blended into the background, rather than taking the typical route of up front and center.

X23 ... Yeah, she came across way better than I thought she would.

Ironically, even though it's titled LOGAN, in some ways I believe it's a better final Xavier story, which I thought worked beautifully and was far and away the strongest aspect of the film. I think this is the best Patrick Stewart has ever been as Xavier. He steals the movie, IMO. But I can't take anything away from Hugh Jackman's peformance. Not many people could pull off playing themselves in their twilight and in their prime in the same movie (If you see it, you'll get what I mean). It's always been painfully obvious Hugh's always had an affinity for the part, and I think it's always shown thru.

All in all, a moving swan song to Hugh Jackman's Wolverine.

That's a good review, Joker. It sounds balanced and fair.

I haven't seen the film yet, but in principle I agree with the suggestion of this being a possible 'what if' scenario along the lines of TDKR, rather than a definitive conclusion to the series. The X-Men movie timeline is indeed a mess. It's not quite as bad as the Highlander series, but it's still awfully confusing. So I'm always a bit wary of trying to determine what's canon and what isn't. It sounds like this film is best appreciated as a standalone project, which is how I approach all of the Fox Marvel films these days.

Here's my short but sweet review of Logan: The best X-Men film yet

How would you rank the other X-Men films, gobbs? Which do you think are the best entries in the series, and which the weakest?

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun, 12 Mar  2017, 22:27
How would you rank the other X-Men films, gobbs? Which do you think are the best entries in the series, and which the weakest?

This is my rough ranking:

1. Logan [2017]
2. Days of Future Past [2014]
3. First Class [2011]
4. X-Men [2000]
5. X2 [2003]
6. The Last Stand [2006]
7. The Wolverine [2013]
8. Age of Apocalypse [2015]
9. Origins: Wolverine [2009]

I've never understood all the hate for X-Men: The Last Stand.  There are a few things I really don't like about the film, particularly the way Angel is presented (something that sadly wasn't improved much in Age of Apocalypse) and the poor way Cyclops is killed-off, but overall I think it's a solidly made action movie, and the first three X-Men films and The Wolverine are of roughly equal quality IMHO (i.e. average/slightly above average).

Logan and Days of Future Past are the two X-Men films that I think come anywhere close to hitting their marks (I like a lot about First Class, especially Wolverine's five second cameo, but it's still highly flawed, and too many characters in the ensemble cast, including Emma Frost, are poorly served).

For what it's worth, if we're including Deadpool as a X-Men, or Fox 'mutant', film of sorts, I'd rank it #3, just below Days of Future Past, and above First Class.

I'm still highly dissatisfied with the overall franchise.  I feel it started off on the wrong footing; the first film was too dark, the stakes were already too high, and arguably it should have been a period piece set in the 60s (as the later 'First Class' was) featuring the original pre-Wolverine team (i.e. Professor X and his students, Cyclops, Jean Grey, The Beast, Angel, and Iceman).  By starting off on a more hopeful, optimistic, and less bombastic note, the franchise would have more room to develop, and it wouldn't have degenerated into 'Wolverine, and his other mutant friends' rather than the true ensemble comic-book movie franchise it deserved to be.

Still, I've finally accepted the existing Fox franchise and its interpretation of the various X-Men characters, for what it is, and although he's much taller and prettier than I'd ideally like for the character, Hugh Jackman has really won me around with his Wolverine performance, especially with Logan, his apparent swansong in this particular role.

It's been years since I saw The Last Stand, but I recall not liking it much. Maybe I should give it another go. I did however enjoy The Wolverine. It's not a great film, but I appreciated the nods to the Claremont/Miller run and I liked the Japanese setting.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 13 Mar  2017, 00:15I'm still highly dissatisfied with the overall franchise.  I feel it started off on the wrong footing; the first film was too dark, the stakes were already too high, and arguably it should have been a period piece set in the 60s (as the later 'First Class' was) featuring the original pre-Wolverine team (i.e. Professor X and his students, Cyclops, Jean Grey, The Beast, Angel, and Iceman).  By starting off on a more hopeful, optimistic, and less bombastic note, the franchise would have more room to develop, and it wouldn't have degenerated into 'Wolverine, and his other mutant friends' rather than the true ensemble comic-book movie franchise it deserved to be.

I don't disagree with any of this. In general, I can't say I've ever been a fan of the X-Men film series. I remember going to see the first one on the big screen with a friend back in 2000. We were both big fans of the X-Men comics and cartoon show at the time, but we emerged from the theatre feeling distinctly underwhelmed. I understood Singer opting for the grounded black leather approach in the wake of Blade and The Matrix, but fast-forward to 2017 and I'm anticipating the day we finally get to see the classic yellow and blue costumes in live action (the outfits from First Class were close, but still not quite there). While the current trend may be for gritty reboots, I think this is one franchise that would benefit from a more colourful and fantastical reinvention. And until it receives that treatment, I'll continued ranking the 1992 animated series as the superior adaptation.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 13 Mar  2017, 00:15Still, I've finally accepted the existing Fox franchise and its interpretation of the various X-Men characters, for what it is, and although he's much taller and prettier than I'd ideally like for the character, Hugh Jackman has really won me around with his Wolverine performance, especially with Logan, his apparent swansong in this particular role.

It's strange to think the Wolverine in the comics is meant to be shorter than Joe Pesci. Jackman is obviously far too tall and good looking for the role, but as you say, he's made it his own and done a sterling job. I just wish we could have seen him wear the mask at least once. But I'm still looking forward to seeing Logan. The positives I'm hearing – the strong performances, emphasis on character and use of practical stunts over CGI – sound right up my street.

Has anyone been watching the TV show Legion? If so, what's the verdict?

Never bothered watching this movie. Until about a week ago, that is. I rewatched The Wolverine and thought this could be a decent palette cleanser. And it was... in ways.

This is a dreary, bleak, depressing film. Yeah, it wraps up Logan and Xavier's stories. But it does so in the most wrist-slitting fashion possible that I honestly can't imagine ever watching this film again.

And yet, I do consider it to be a worthy send off in some ways. Xavier goes out with a whimper (in more ways than one) while Logan died as he lived: in a berserker fury, covered in blood. There's some dignity to Logan's demise. He's trying to do the right thing and help others... but he's also trying to get old while retaining his dignity. If that's not a hell of a goal.

In the end, I'd say this film's worth watching. But I don't think it's worth rewatching.

Watched this a while ago and I think it's one of the few "franchise" movies of our era that's memorable, and a genuinely good movie. A movie, not a glorified marketing maschine, a big budget meme-generator.

Bleak. But genuine, not in a fake, pose-y way. It was the comic book movie equivalent of saying farewell. It's maybe Wolverine's TDKR. Loved it. Batman deserves such a movie too. I don't think he'll ever get one in our lifetime.

It's one of the few comic book movies of our era that will stand the test of time, I think, and maybe the real finale of the Fox X-Men franchise, started in 2000.

As for rewatchability, it's maybe like Johnny Cash's Hurt, a song one can't really listen often, but can admire and respect.

Has anyone seen Jean-François Richet's Blood Father (2016)? I watched it last night, and I was struck by certain similarities with Logan.

To begin with, Jackman's appearance in Logan is very similar to Mel Gibson's in Blood Father.


Both heroes are aging drunks who are trying to put their violent pasts behind them. Both have to protect their daughters from the ruthless villains pursuing them.



Both men wear vests during the gory finale, and both (SPOILERS) ultimately give their lives to protect their daughters.


Both films were shot in New Mexico and showcase sandy rural vistas. There are also similarities in cinematography, with both movies utilising a yellow-gold colour palette congruent with the arid setting.

I know Mangold cited Shane (1953) as an influence on Logan, but I can't help wondering if Richet's film might also have influenced it. If only on a visual level. Filming on Logan began on the 23rd May 2016, which was precisely two days after Blood Father premiered at the Cannes Film Festival.

Anyone who enjoyed Logan should give Blood Father a watch. It's a solid action thriller.


Interestingly, Gibson was approached about playing Wolverine in 1997 when the first X-Men movie was in the early stages of pre-production. The studio even produced the following piece of concept art depicting him in the role.