nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Logan Spoilers from post 212

Agent Coulson

Hugh's last outing as LOGAN arrives March 3rd 2017.

https://twitter.com/RealHughJackman/status/783661609617072129

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Victor

eviltimeban wrote: »

Yes but as far as Logan was concerned,
he left them stranded. Perhaps.

Not really. The children were resourceful and their direct enemies had been killed.

Drumpot

Anybody know how Logan's health could deteriorate so badly over two decades?
In Wolverine he was still a beast, I know he drank himself silly but with his
ridiculous healing abilities I wouldn't of thought that would have much impact.
I'm guessing is the adamantium poising him ?

constitutionus

Drumpot wrote: »

Anybody know how Logan's health could deteriorate so badly over two decades?
In Wolverine he was still a beast, I know he drank himself silly but with his
ridiculous healing abilities I wouldn't of thought that would have much impact.
I'm guessing is the adamantium poising him ?

he pretty much puts it down to

adamantium poisoning

in the film himself but IIRC didnt

yer man the doctor say they (the corporation he worked for) essentially took out/suppressed the X gene by seeding the food and drink and consumables the general public was using ? hence why there were no more mutants being born except the ones they created. i think they were trying to imply it was effecting him too.

he certainly got his mojo back when he injected himself with the greenstuff anyway, if only for a short period.

TerrorFirmer

I actually enjoyed the first movie as entertaining fluff, and thought The Wolverine was a big improvement and quite decent, but this is in a different league altogether - absolutely astounding film, and not just an excellent 'superhero' film. The performances are incredible, Patrick Stewart gives a heart wrenching and haunting performance as a failing, vulnerable and troubled Professor X, as does Hugh Jackman as our similarly afflicted protagonist who is seemingly succumbing to the ravages of time just two decades after his last appearance.

Even to call it a 'superhero' movie does it a major disservice - this is a stripped back, emotional character driven journey about finding purpose, sacrifice and redemption. No massive reliance on CGI, no 'end of the world' plot, no hammy or cliche plot progression - nothing you might typically expect from a movie set in this universe.

Brutal, tragic, moving, raw....words I never thought I'd ever use to describe an X-Men movie but this movie is just such a radical departure from the typical forumula that's dominated the franchise until now (not always to its detriment mind, but X-Men: Apocalypse was a new low). It's a damn shame this is Jackman's final outing as Wolverine.

Just an incredible movie that will stay with you for quite some time. A genuine emotional rollercoaster!

Nervous Wreck

How is it a disservice to call it a superhero movie?

Heckler

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

How is it a disservice to call it a superhero movie?

I guess he just means its more than the usual CGI fest with heroes throwing out one-liners before saving the day, I dunno, haven't seen it yet but only having seen one or two X-Men films this one looks really good.

FutureGuy

Fcuking amazing.

Slydice

Well. I think we have a nominee for best Computer Generated content award based on these replies

Plenty of CG in that film.

TerrorFirmer

Slydice wrote: »

Well. I think we have a nominee for best Computer Generated content award based on these replies

Plenty of CG in that film.

To be fair I think you know what was meant. Not that CGI isn't used - of course it is - but there's not a reliance on it to drive the story nor is there a reliance on huge CGI spectacle that has come to define the majority of superhero movies.

It's an emotionally loaded and adult character driven story and a strong departure from the established standard. Deadpool was a departure in that it was r-rated, but thematically and stylistically it was very similar to previous films in the universe and followed a familiar narrative.

Logan is quite different, an adult film but not simply by virtue of the violence and profanity ala Deadpool. It's a heavy, weighted film that exposes franchise characters we know and love at their weakest - frail, vulnerable and mortal individuals who no longer seem to have a place in a world that previously revolved around them.

Jackman and Stewart's portrayals of their older, disillusioned and failing selves are so astoundingly good it's frankly an upsetting film to watch as a franchise fan.

How is it a disservice to call it a superhero movie?

Because it's a film I'd recommend to people who simply enjoy excellent film even if they weren't genre fans. I couldn't personally say the same about most 'superhero' movies, even though I personally very much enjoy them.

There's a huge weight behind Logan that other superhero/comic book films lack, and it sets it apart - I feel it's a shame to solely label it as just a 'superhero' or 'X-Men' film because it offers so much more in character development and human emotion than previous films in the franchise have done up until now and it's a much more grounded affair than the label 'superhero' movie would suggest.

It's not any sort of slight against superhero movies if that was your thinking.

ps3lover

This is making a killing at the box office, already looking to outgross the first 2 Wolverine movies, which is odd as they where PG13 and this is rated R. How can a new R rated movie outgross a PG13 rated movie. Doesn't make sense.

IncognitoMan

I'm absolutely delighted this is out doing the other PG-13 films at the box office. Hopefully now after this and Deadpool last year we can see more adult level stories from the characters that warrant it.

Slydice

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

To be fair I think you know what was meant. Not that CGI isn't used - of course it is - but there's not a reliance on it to drive the story nor is there a reliance on huge CGI spectacle that has come to define the majority of superhero movies.

I dunno, seeing all the other films "how it was made" bits has me thinking they rely big time on computers these day. I'm guessing there was CGI all over the place.

The healing powers, prof Xs attacks, the self driving trucks were probably CG. Probably loads of the locations had CG scerery in the background. The blood splatters, the kids powers.

I probably haven't even spotted the full of it.

I think the area that wasn't there as much as other films was probably

big explosions and energy/nature attacks and the like

. I'd say the big contrast would be the

effects used in the ending of Logan vs X-Men apocalypse or even the likes of Suicide Squad or Capt America civil war (stark even had his beam weapons)

. I think a lot of the feel of it is that the film didn't feel something like the video version of photoshopped or airbrushed or something.

SimonTemplar

I must say, I was holding back the tears due to that very final shot.

The Black Oil

Came at this with virtually no experience of the franchise - Wolverine, or indeed the wider X Men one. Very enjoyable, I thought. Key strength is that it keeps things rooted in character. Cast well too. More like this, please.

Beard scene was good. :pac:

razorblunt

Incredible movie, absolutely loved it.
What a credits song too.

Sudden Valley

Definitely one ofvthe best x-men movies and the movie didnt drag at all. Lacked a great villain and all the stabbing/action sequences got a bit repetitive but loved the film. I guess this is the first x-men movie that has a major hispanic character

corcaigh1

Pure ****e, predictable and dragged on...

razorblunt

corcaigh1 wrote: »

Pure ****e, predictable and dragged on...

You watched the wrong Wolverine movie didn't you?

ArthurG

We went to see it last night - both loved it. Got a 'Last of Us' vibe off it (for obvious reasons).

Turtyturd

Even if it's not meant as a slight, I wouldn't agree with the disservice to call it a comic book movie comment. Seems very much like an extension of the 'they're only comics argument' used to dismiss comics as a form of storytelling. If anything it should be highlighted to show that these types of movies can have that level of character and depth.

On the movie itself I enjoyed it. Took the basic concept of old man Logan, cut away a lot of Millar's rubbish and tied in X-23 brilliantly, although I would have preferred if they had kept Wolverine responsible for

the deaths of the xmen.

. Also loved the little nods to characters like Rictor and Sunspot.

On the downside I think it dragged a bit in places, and the villains were weak. Creed should always be the one to torment Logan and him

killing Xavier and the family that took them in would have carried much more weight.

. Also had minor annoyances with Stephen Merchant's accent, and the fact that none of the gang in the opening scene hurt themselves hitting or kicking Wolverine.

py2006

Guys, I haven't seen the other movies. Do I need to see them first?

kwestfan08

py2006 wrote: »

Guys, I haven't seen the other movies. Do I need to see them first?

I hadn't seen the others either and seen Logan yesterday and loved it. Obviously without a knowledge of the universe there may be nods that didn't resonate with me but I never felt lost or wondering who anybody was. Once you know who professor x is you're good to go.

py2006

kwestfan08 wrote: »

I hadn't seen the others either and seen Logan yesterday and loved it. Obviously without a knowledge of the universe there may be nods that didn't resonate with me but I never felt lost or wondering who anybody was. Once you know who professor x is you're good to go.

And who is he? Lol

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

py2006

jacksie66 wrote: »

The lad from Star Trek..

Ah Picard.

Slydice

py2006 wrote: »

Guys, I haven't seen the other movies. Do I need to see them first?

No. X-Men 1 would probably get you away with it.

TerrorFirmer

A lot of the emotional gravitas comes from the close familiarity with the characters, though no, it's a good movie as movies go even if you haven't seen any of the prior movies.

It would definitely help to watch the first two X-Men movies and Days of Future Past at least, though it's actually fine to not have seen the previous two Wolverine movies (Origins and The Wolverine).

Days of Future Past really messes with the timeline but it leads into Logan as it ends in 2023 - Logan's set in 2029, though in that world, no mutants have apparently been born in 20 years and Logan has aged hugely....so it seems that generally speaking Logan seems to be sort of a self contained affair doing it's own thing to some extent, and doesn't really establish what exact timeline it belongs to.

It's quite difficult to explain as Days of Future Past basically flung the entire toolbox in the works and confused the timeline for virtually every film prior to it.

ScrubsfanChris

There was probably loads of easter eggs, but one of them I caught was the sword hanging on the wall of Logans bedroom, given to him in The Wolverine

TheIrishGrover

Loved Logan: Last Of Us X-Men

Loved the film. Thought the acting was top notch. Was afraid that the "adult" nature would be slapped in swearing and obvious CGI blood but it actually fit and was not just there for a Deadpool effect.

GottaGetGatt

I was saying it was going to be like the Last of Us before i saw it, but for me the real story of the film was the father, son relationship between Logan and Charles.That scene with the Munsons and the X-24 reveal was powerful stuff.The first time we see Logan so powerless and desperate to save Charles and lara. The scene in the car afterwards above was just excellent.The first time we see him physically and emotionally exhausted after a fight.Hugh Jackman was just excellent in this.