Review: Logan

Year: 2017
Director: James Mangold
Screenplay: James Mangold, Scott Frank, Michael Green
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, Boyd Holbrook, Stephen Merchant, Richard E. Grant, Dafne Keen.

Synopsis is here:

I cannot say I loved Logan, although I do admire it. The superhero movie that’s making grown men cry has gained many apostles, but I’m just not a devout follower. I fear part of this may be down to how I feel about The Wolverine character as a whole. There’s also the issue of how we finally got to a Wolverine film that’s actually interested in the character. If the other films had done their jobs fully, I could feel myself having more resonance with myself. For that, we could blame some poor choices on Fox’s part. Getting James Mangold to take the mantle a little earlier could have helped amongst other things.

Logan’s stripped down, 90’s road movie aesthetic is actually quite appealing after the overtly slick, all spectacle approach of X-men: Apocalypse. Marigold’s intention to make something that is clearly set within the world, yet not of the same style is the approach that has been deeply needed in the growing hemogenic realm of the “superhero movie” sub-genre. The irreverence of Deadpool and the cynical nature of Logan are steps in the right direction. Not just a refreshing change of pace but a change of focus. By sliming the stakes and adding finality to proceedings Logan doesn’t feel like yet another piece to a needlessly complicated puzzle. It finds a solid reason for a viewer to care about what’s on screen. We might not see everything reset itself two years down the line. Even though as I say this, words about the future of these characters have already been hyped.

For now, Logan appears to be a somewhat fitting conclusion to an awkward spin-off series. It plays with meta well and doesn’t feel the need to aim towards humour to keep things interesting. It’s also generally quite upsetting. Death follows our characters throughout this movie. Unlike the shallow lip service paid to the likes of Ironman 3 (2013), there’s a true feeling that regret weighs heavily on Weapon X. That everything he touches simply makes things worse. A tragic sequence during the second half of the movie is particularly despairing for this very reason. When Logan lets his guard down. There’s a good chance that innocent people could get hurt.

The film is a rather crowning achievement for its main star; Hugh Jackman. After 17 years of inhabiting this character, Jackman’s performances have always remained relatively consistent even if the film’s stories and plots have not. In Logan, Jackman infuses his character with far more bitterness and resentment than before, but also more pathos. Some of the films more compelling scenes come from the now fraught relationship that is held with Logan's former mentor; Charles Xavier (an on-form Patrick Stewart). Again, seeing the tension displayed here is as frustrating as it is entertaining. There’s a dull ache that resides in scenes in which they talk about what could have been. It’s painful not only because of the strength of the performances, but because there’s always the slight feeling that it’s a meta nod to the incoherency of the X-men film series itself.

The big question for some is whether Logan is better than The Dark Knight (2008). Not in my eyes. While it’s easier now to see flaws with Nolan’s comic book hero works, I still find The Dark Knight a better-paced blockbuster, featuring a stronger antagonist and set pieces which stick in the mind long after the film finishes. In terms of personal taste, I also found Logan’s cynicism harder to contend with. It’s a film in which death weighs heavy on the shoulders and even the outcome of secondary characters is tough going. One can’t help but think that some of the plaudits are simply because we see more bloodshed. If that is the case, it is somewhat troubling as Logan never truly feels cathartic.
Let it be said, however, that Logan is one of the more notable Superhero movies of this cycle as it dares to be different. The film’s finality is a shot in the arm for the superhero genre in general. The film’s grim tone, may not be for everyone, but this third and possibly final entry in the wolverine series does well to remind the audience that the stakes don’t always have to be saving the world. They can be about saving one soul.

Review: Deadpool

Year: 2016
Director: Tim Miller
Screenplay: Paul Wernick, Rhett Reese
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Morena Baccarin, Ed Skrein, T. J. Miller, Gina Carano, Brianna Hildebrand Stefan Kapičić

Synopsis is here

Crazy, violent and crammed full of self-relevance and meta-humour, Deadpool, with its in your face snark and obnoxiousness, comes at the viewer as aggressively as its marketing. For the most part, it pulls its nonsense off with an entertainingly reckless abandon. It may not be Airplane! (1982), but looks to aim for the dizzying highs of The Zucker brothers joke ratios. Then again, noticing that Deadpool’s screenplay is credited to the writers of Zombieland (2009), you shouldn’t be surprised. If you happen to have a penchant for penis jokes, you’ll also be in good stead.

Deadpool’s love for smut, breaking the fourth wall and general piss-taking of the recent comic book genre is not only quite refreshing, but it papers over the fact that there’s little else in the film apart from this. While holding similar elements, it doesn’t push the bar of comic adaptations in the same way that Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini’s American Splendor (2003) manages. The latter movie shaped and warped art and life in a far more striking way. However, as a mainstream, superhero movie, Deadpool’s zaniness isn’t aiming for anything life affirming, and its fubar prat-falling helps distract from its tepid storytelling and blunt, uninspiring action.

Luke Owen’s recent article for Film School Rejects, touches on the idea that the film itself wants us to watch bad movies. Deadpool revels in snide side swipes of failed/poor comic book franchises (Green Lantern and X-Men Origins get a hefty brunt of the shade thrown). The main argument that Owen places across is that if you’ve not seen these poor cinematic entries, then Deadpool loses a certain amount of its edge. Others have noted that Deadpool does little to subvert comic book origin cliché and merely apes them. It is quite difficult not to be reminded visually/structurally of entries such as the sub-standard Spawn (1997) or non-comic book comic movie Darkman (1990) while watching Deadpool, among other films. It’s also difficult to ignore just how typical Deadpool is when the chimichangas aren’t being served.

Then again, Marvel Studios wishes you to read comics, watch T.V series and films in order for you to keep up with its chaotic timelines. Also, only now we’re getting into a position where new marvel characters won’t be set up with origin stories. The smirking, winking Deadpool clearly enjoys being part of that playground. It acknowledges its faults superficially, yet with a certain knowing charm. We are given nods to pop culture like Hello Kitty and The Matrix (1999) all the while bopping our heads to the specifically 80’s/90’s soundtrack, featuring the old school earworm Shoop by Salt n Pepa as well as Ruff Ryder favourite DMX’s X Gon Give It To Ya. Irony shouldn’t be lost on the fact that Wade/Deadpool is part of Team X in X-Men: Origins: Wolverine and is Weapon XI in that movie as well. It’s hard to see much of what it does as unintentional. There’s sometimes method to its madness.

It is hard to gain any sense of weight to Deadpool’s action sequences, which, despite their gore content, feel clunky more than anything else. Say what you like about Bryan Singer’s X-Men (Deadpool does often), but Singer at least gives us a memorable set piece in each film. Deadpool’s set pieces, merely mimics most of the comic book movies it parodies. Case in point, the film’s loud, crashing shipping yard climax, could easily feature in a number of previous Marvel films. As could the hum drum villains, although the opening credit sequence pretty slyly digs at Hollywood’s typical leanings when it comes to villainy.

Deadpool’s main strength is its cast chemistry and the rapid torrent of gags. Ryan Reynolds and Morena Baccarin are enjoyable together as is Reynolds and T.J Miller. The banter is juvenile and irrelevant, but the point of Deadpool seems to be that there’s little point other than juvenile irrelevance, something that does feel refreshing with the slightly disturbing knowledge of the sheer volume of upcoming comic book movies smacking our eyeballs. Deadpool’s fourth wall “knowledge” and childishness may not make it a superhero movie landmark, but it is a relatively amusing diversion.

Review: The Wolverine

Year: 2013

Director: James Mangold

Screenplay: Mark Bomback, Scott Frank

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rila Fukushima, Tao Okamoto, Svetlana Khodchenkova

Synopsis is here

We all have our biases, and for me, a Wolverine film with James Mangold was going to be a negative one. Speak to more open minded bloggers and critics and of course the idea of biases is a secret shame that is often shunned. “We must be open to all things!” Some may scream.

We’re not. Our personal afflictions affect us greatly and the idea of the director of the horrible faux fizzy, Charade wannabe; Knight and Day, helming a Wolverine sequel that was to effectively erase the risible “origins” film out of people’s minds was not on my list of things I can’t wait to see at the cinema. Mangold has had a decent past with the likes of Copland, Girl Interrupted and Walk the Line. However the elements that were making up this feature just didn't seem to meld in my head.

But what do you know (more what do I know), The Wolverine manages to be a pretty effective waste of time. I mean that as a terms of endearment. I had more knock around fun with this than some of the “bigger” blockbusters of the year. I think the reasons are simple. The Wolverine doesn’t seem to be invoking any sort of terrorism, or end of the world foolishness. It’s almost as if the film realised the fatigue that has come with the pummelling all these major cities have taken. The Wolverine has its focus on its people (well mutants) and the all the better for it.

Mangold was quick to spout of a very particular list of films that influenced the film, ranging from the likes of Wong Kai Wai’s Chungking Express to Yasujiro Ozu’s Floating Weeds. Mangold’s choices are interesting to say the least, as while the film doesn’t particularly feel like any of the films he mentions, the first two acts of the film didn’t seem to fall into the same typical categories of similar fare. There an interesting use of framing and space, the action that takes place has weight to it (I was a massive fan of the bullet train sequence) and Jackman clearly looks like he’s having more fun than he did previously. It helps that his supporting cast are a bevy of attractive ladies. Both Rila Fukushima and Tao Okamoto are fashion models rather than actors. But neither embarrass themselves in terms of performance. The chemistry that both women have with Jackman is palatable.

Yet it’s that dastardly third act, which looks to hamper things as the film moves from formidable jaunt to scattershot clusterfuck. Character motivations fly quickly out the window as the film decides to lend itself to typical reveals for reasons that don’t seem to matter anymore. A shame, as there’s more than enough to make this worthwhile. A screenplay tidy up and a better villain (Svetlana Khodchenkova is hammy and out of step with the tone of the film) would have had The Wolverine as a more solid recommendation. It now gets merely a light tip of the hat for convincing my bias that it can easily be mistaken.

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Year: 2009
Director: Gavin Hood
Screenplay: Skip Woods, David Benioff
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Ryan Renolds, Danny Huston#

Film Synopsis is here

So we all know about the whole hoo ha about the fucking work print being leaked, the reviewer who watched it getting fired and the rest of it. Lets feel bad for a studio trying to make an buck on a popular franchise. And lets also lambaste the same studio for insulting it's paying audience by giving us a weak ass film that almost deserved to be watched for free.

No don't get me wrong.I didn't expect it to be a masterpiece or classic, I didn't even expect Wolverine to be the exuberant film that X2 is. But I did expect it to be fun. I didn't want it to take the piss out of me for watching it. I expected the filmmakers to release that I have watched The x-men series to see that I would invest time and effort into watching their movie.

While I understand a film like this wishes to stand it's own two feet and not need the help of their counterparts to prop them up, I don't want aspects of story changed willy nilly just for the sake of it. Wolverine is full of little issues that make the film more ridiculous than it already is. This is a film about a indestructible man....silly right? Well at least make it coincide with the other silly films featuring said indestructible man! The screenplay is full of inaccuracies that made my viewing of the film and depressing one. Much like Lucas when he wrote the "already written" prequels, we get a screenplay that has appeared to have missed the very films that it's based on. I won't go into too much detail but I will say: HOW DO YOU KNOW THE BULLETS WILL DO THAT? When a film gives me questions like this I get annoyed. The reason: Lazy ass writing.

The lazy ass writing also gives a shed load of characters with nothing to do. The screenplay gives us cliched cheese ball lines that were amusing the first time you heard them (back in 1989) but not any more. We are giving a script that reminds me that even if your film is a big dumb actioner, you still need structure, you still need to be witty and you still need to give a damn about who your writing about. I saw none of that here.

But what about the action? the effect shots that were missing from the bootleg etc...Well they're nothing special. In fact expect for the last climatic fight, they're rather flat and forgetful. The CGI is weak and looks far better in X2 (6 years ago) than now.

However, despite this being one of the worst films I've seen this year, some of the acting was very enjoyable. Liev Schreiber has a great time chewing on scenery as Sabretooth and is easily the best thing about the film. Hugh Jackman plays what I can only say is a softer Wolverine than before, but in softening the character he loses some of the the ruggedness that made him so watchable in the first two Xmen films. Ryan Reynolds shows why a Deadpool film could be a great laugh in a role that is nothing more than extended cameo. Talyor Kitch plays fan boy favourite with a lot of urgency but as a character with no real purpose other than to make comic fans grin, we find him quite wasted. Danny Huston does his best Brian Cox impression and ultimately fails, which is a shame as I find him quite an overlooked actor.

Wolverine is big and dumb, but it has forgotten it's fun at the door. Despite having some OTT comic book moments and it's light tone, it has none of the identity issues and depth which made the first two xmen so memorable and none of the spectacle that Brett Ratner tried to place in X-men the last stand. In the end the film is the most lackluster entry to the franchise. The imdb ratings say something different from what I've said and that's fine but lets just say I'm happy enough never to grace the film with my presence again.