Page 1 of 3

Logon

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 3:13 am UTC
by Weeks
I just came back from watching this. Went into it cold, just read the Metacritic score and the little excerpt of the A.V. Club review.

It was very well done, good acting, good directing, etc. I just didn't expect it to be
Spoiler:
that damn sad and gruesome. Like I knew it said drama, but thought it would be downplayed like most (all?) Marvel movies.
I did like it. Better than I thought it would be.

Re: Logan

Posted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 7:14 am UTC
by pogrmman
I saw it tonight too.

As somebody who had no background whatsoever on the story (like I haven't seen or read any of the X-men movies/comics or either Wolverine movie), I thought I wasn't going to be able to get much. I knew kind of (sort of) what the X-men were, but didn't know any specifics. I was actually able to enjoy it more than I thought I would, despite not knowing any of the backstory.

I thought the acting was good, and I enjoyed the story. It was
Spoiler:
pretty dark and gruesome and sad
but I kind of liked that.

I'd recommend it.

Re: Logan

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 2:51 pm UTC
by Zohar
Saw it yesterday too, pretty much agree with the two posts above me. Since it wasn't written outside of spoilers, I'll say that it's VERY violent, for those considering seeing it.

Re: Logan

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:52 pm UTC
by Whizbang
Zohar wrote:Since it wasn't written outside of spoilers, I'll say that it's VERY violent, for those considering seeing it.


It's an R-Rated movie about a guy that has 12" knives coming out of his hands.

It better be.

Re: Logan

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:00 pm UTC
by Zohar
I'm just trying to be helpful! The mom with two young children who left after 10 minutes or so didn't know!

Re: Logan

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:30 pm UTC
by Angua
It's rated 15 in the UK.

But yes, violent and sweary. No sexual stuff.

Re: Logan

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:34 pm UTC
by Weeks
I went in not realizing it was R-Rated...locally it says R16. But mostly I was going off previous installments.

Re: Logan

Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2017 5:53 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
Saw it on Thursday - while waiting for the Switch release - possibly as many f-bombs as 4 Weddings, but more evenly spread. Some reviews have been calling it the best X-Men movie (and possibly the best comic book movie) - me, I'd say it's a contender for best movie this year.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:09 pm UTC
by RickyOrrooho
Yeah I was also surprised at how dramatic it was. The previous Wolverine movies were pretty emotionally driven though, but this one is really sad.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:25 pm UTC
by Weeks
I think that their relative lack of quality (or objective, in Origins) made them feel less emotional.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 10:17 pm UTC
by SDK
Great movie. The violence was there, yeah, but the plot was pretty damn solid all things considered. Two ten year old girls wearing bathrobes were in the theatre with their mom, but they stuck it out. :shock:

Hands down, my favourite part of the movie was
Spoiler:
Xavier with dementia. Considering the effects of old age on so powerful a mutant made the movie really intriguing for me. Of course, the comedy around all that was great too. :)

Re: Logan

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 1:46 pm UTC
by mosc
Comic Book Movies just came of age and have fully become a replacement for the traditional Western. Logan made no qualms about it and referenced it's inspiration directly. Just blown away that a movie like this could be made. I guess we have the success of Deadpool to thank for getting executives less afraid of the R rating? I have to say I frowned a little bit at the mom with two girls next to her looking around 9 and 11 but everyone else looked like they could handle it.

Logan was as gritty as gritty gets and if you look for them, pretty much every Western movie trope is there. Ravaging. Especially if you have some attachment for Wolverine, Professor X, or even just Patrick Stuart (who doesn't have that?). There were parts of this movie that had me struggling to breathe with intensity and emotional depth.

Go see this movie. It's a turning point in cinema.

Re: Logan

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:24 pm UTC
by Diadem
Just watched this and damn, was it good.

I went in with very low expectations. I knew the movie had gotten good reviews, but still. The previous two Wolverine movies were mediocre at best, and the previous X-men was terrible. But forget all that. This movie was really, really, really good.

This is not a fun movie. There's humor in there, but the overall tone is very dark and gritty. It's barely a superhero movie, as mosc points out, it's basically a Western. I really liked that they didn't fall into the trap of putting in too much exposition. Most of the backstory was implied through powerful acting, there wasn't a single flashback in there.

Go see this movie. It's worth it if you aren't a comic book fan (though I admit I'm not sure if the movie works if you are completely unfamiliar with the x-men. Particularly professor X's arc won't make much sense if you don't know what his powers are, I think).

Re: Logan

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:34 pm UTC
by maybeagnostic
It took 18 years but someone finally made a genuinely good X-Men movie. An amazing send off for Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart from the franchise although
Spoiler:
I have no idea how they continue to make X-Men movies after this. Just yet another reboot or something? Honestly, my perfect outcome would probably be to wait a few years and do some sequels with the young teenager mutants from this movie.


Jackman and Stewart are both great, of course, but Dafne Keen also does an amazing job and her character is every bit as important as them.
Spoiler:
She also gets a surprising amount of range- a lot of silent acting, action scenes, Spanish and English and just... she's great through it all.

Re: Logan

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:49 pm UTC
by Zohar
The first and second X-Men were really great movies, at least when they came out. First Class and Days of Future Past were decent too, this isn't the first great X-Men...

Re: Logan

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:10 pm UTC
by Weeks
It's the first of its calibre I think. I enjoyed Days of Future Past and thought it was pretty good, but this one is just a league above imo

Re: Logan

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:46 pm UTC
by Diadem
I agree that Dafne Keen was excellent.

Which is actually an interesting point. When did child actors stop sucking? We've seen some seriously great child actors in recent years. Imagine Anakin Skywalker played by this actress and suddenly you have an awesome movie.

Re: Logan

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:32 pm UTC
by Weeks
Diadem wrote:When did child actors stop sucking?
Is that like a thing? Apart from the prequels what films had terrible child acting (that were big productions and such)

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 12:54 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Also, once again, the kid didn't act like shit because he was a shitty actor.

The kid - and everyone else in that fucking film - acted like shit because they had a shitty director.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:47 am UTC
by Diadem
Weeks wrote:
Diadem wrote:When did child actors stop sucking?
Is that like a thing? Apart from the prequels what films had terrible child acting (that were big productions and such)

Maybe it's just me, but yes, I always had the impression that this is a thing. Or was a thing. A movie like 'Home Alone' is very famous, but the acting is terrible. A more recent example is Harry Potter, which had some very bad acting in the first two movies.

SecondTalon wrote:Also, once again, the kid didn't act like shit because he was a shitty actor.

The kid - and everyone else in that fucking film - acted like shit because they had a shitty director.

I'm not blaming the kids. But there's three good reasons to expect kids to do worse than adults on average. First of all kids will have less training than adults actors, for obvious reasons. Also labour laws often severely restrict the number of hours you are allowed to work with kids, so it's probably harder to do a great many takes to get a scene right. Finally I'm guessing that most directors aren't trained pedagogues. Just because you're good at directing adults doesn't mean you'll be good at directing kids.

And like I said in my previous post, I have the impression that Hollywood has gotten better at directing kids in recent years. I dunno why, maybe they've gotten better at finding talented kids, or maybe they've gotten better at training and directing them. But I see a lot more movies with great acting by children, and a lot fewer with terrible acting.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:56 am UTC
by Chen
Most of the bad acting that came from the kid in Star Wars was when presenting dialogue too. There was significantly less of that here in Logan so presumably they could ensure when she did speak she got it right. Having her glare and look angry probably is far less difficult.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:00 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
Weeks wrote:
Diadem wrote:When did child actors stop sucking?
Is that like a thing? Apart from the prequels what films had terrible child acting (that were big productions and such)


Avatar, the Last Airbender? After Earth? If you've never seen, you can pretty much tell just by the trailers that the acting is terrible.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that movies with a lot of special effects/greenscreen are probably very difficult for child actors to do a good job in. Heck, even veteran actors (eg. Ian McKellan in The Hobbit, Ewan McGregor in Star Wars) complained publicly about the difficulty they had with the amount of greenscreen work. Movies where the kids are just being kids, it's probably easier to get away with.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:27 pm UTC
by Weeks
I only watched one trailer for The Last Airbender and it had no voice lines, but then reviews said it was horrible so I skipped it. The trailer for After Earth did have voice but I didn't really get that the kid was bad in it just from the trailer, but I also didn't watch that movie. I've been meaning to watch them both just to get the genuine Shyamalan Experience™.

Well...what other movies? I'm legit curious now. Diadem made it sound like it's been some kind of trend. Though the prequels were a long time ago in a galaxy far away. Not saying the actors in TLA and AE are great, but like ST said, you can probably chalk those up to the director too. Actually I don't really recall kids in movies because they rarely speak. Like, in Rogue One for example, the kid doesn't say anything...I think? But she wasn't particularly terrible.

Re: Logan

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:45 am UTC
by maybeagnostic
Firstly, kids rarely get major roles in movies, at least in part because getting a good performance from a kid is obviously harder than working with an experienced actor so any trend won't have that many data points. Secondly, when a child actor is bad in a movie its ultimately the director's fault (even more so than for everything else that can go wrong in a movie). Anakin in The Phantom Menace was bad but so was everyone else and that movie had some genuinely good actors. The Last Airbender and After Earth were both really bad movies all around as well (although I never bothered watching After Earth). But while there aren't that many terrible blockbusters with child actors in leading roles, are there any such movies where the child actors are major strong sides of the movie? Maybe Seven Pounds or The Pursuit of Happyness although I've not seen either and my impression was that they were mostly about Will Smith.

Laura has silent scenes, action scenes, dramatic scenes, has lines in Spanish and English and so on. That' s a lot of range, many scenes where something could have gone wrong yet she was great in all of them. I can't think of any other movie like that although maybe you have some examples, Weeks?

P.S. There was a kid in Rogue One?

Zohar wrote:The first and second X-Men were really great movies, at least when they came out. First Class and Days of Future Past were decent too, this isn't the first great X-Men...
It's a matter of opinion, of course, but for me none of the other X-men movies were more than goofily entertaining at best. This is the only one that invoked some genuine emotion and stayed with me for more than a few minutes after leaving the theater.

Re: Logan

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:39 pm UTC
by mosc
How old is a child actor? Obviously getting a stunning performance out of a 1 year old is not much about the specific one year old but where's the line? Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit held her own against one of the best ever in Jeff Bridges. Really liked her in that movie. She was probably 12 for most of the filming. I feel like a lot of the examples being given are 6-9 years old.

I agree some of the other X-men movies weren't bad movies, they just weren't great movies. Logan was a great movie. 20 years from now when people are bringing up best movies of 2017, they'll bring up Logan.

Re: Logan

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:37 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
maybeagnostic wrote:Laura has silent scenes, action scenes, dramatic scenes, has lines in Spanish and English and so on. That' s a lot of range, many scenes where something could have gone wrong yet she was great in all of them. I can't think of any other movie like that although maybe you have some examples, Weeks?


I haven't seen the movie in years, but I have a memory that the kids in E.T. are quite solid. The kids in Stranger Things are pretty good. Dakota Fanning always stood out to me as particularly good as a child actor. Going farther back, there's always the likes of Shirley Temple.

In terms of kids in the 10-15 range, there's a bunch. Most notably, Anna Paquin won an Oscar at 11 and several others, such as Jodie Foster and Hailey Joel Osment, were nominated.

Re: Logan

Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:59 pm UTC
by SDK
Example of a bad leading child actor in a good movie: Edward Furlong in Terminator 2. Kid won awards for his acting, but comparing then to now, there's a world of difference in quality there.

Re: Logan

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 5:00 am UTC
by Weeks
The kids in the Jurassic Park films were all meh actors but I don't recall them being particularly awful. Probably the ones in the first one were like..."not good" but they kind of fit in the setting. Maybe. (IT'S A UNIX SYSTEM) In the Lost World, the kid who does gymnastics felt believable to me. (I didn't mind the gymnastics routine when I first watched it, but eh) Oh there was one who gets mauled by compys at the beginning who is also quite believable (...augh). I don't recall the third movie.

The kids in Jurassic World were the brothers, they weren't bad either if a little bland.
maybeagnostic wrote:P.S. There was a kid in Rogue One?
Yeah young Jyn Erso.

Re: Logan

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:26 pm UTC
by Mutex
SDK wrote:Example of a bad leading child actor in a good movie: Edward Furlong in Terminator 2. Kid won awards for his acting, but comparing then to now, there's a world of difference in quality there.

I remember him being pretty decent.

Re: Logan

Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:39 pm UTC
by SDK
Mutex wrote:
SDK wrote:Example of a bad leading child actor in a good movie: Edward Furlong in Terminator 2. Kid won awards for his acting, but comparing then to now, there's a world of difference in quality there.

I remember him being pretty decent.

Sure, decent. He wasn't terrible, but he was definitely not on par with what we see today.

Re: Logan

Posted: Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:33 am UTC
by OP Tipping
On the topic of child actors, there have obviously been some very good performances. Some great ones that come to mind are Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon, Natalie Portman in The Professional, Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense, Jodi Foster in Taxi Driver, Anna Paquin in The Piano and more recently Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit.

Sometimes, I think, this can be down to the patience and skill of the director. Some of the actors named above went on to do great work as adults: others did not display outstanding talent again.

---

On the topic of Logan: I enjoyed it a lot. The action scenes were exciting and somewhat novel. The dialogue was interesting in parts. I saw the film with my daughter who will soon be leaving home to go to university so there was some added emotional impact for me, personally.
I wonder why they had her say "Daddy" at the end rather than "Papa" given that her native tongue seems to be Spanish.

Re: Logan

Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 11:11 pm UTC
by Weeks
OP Tipping wrote:I wonder why they had her say "Daddy" at the end rather than "Papa" given that her native tongue seems to be Spanish.
She had been speaking English for a good while already, especially towards Logan, so I don't think it would've made sense in context

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:45 am UTC
by eSOANEM
On the topic of language, the only real gripe I had (which was pretty minor) was that all the other kids only ever spoke English, even to each other when Logan wasn't there or was unconscious; it was only Laura who spoke Spanish but, if they'd all been raised by the Mexican nurses (but also ordered around by the American scientists) you'd expect them all to have a strong preference for and better grasp of Spanish.

Just seemed odd is all

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 2:47 pm UTC
by mosc
eSOANEM wrote:On the topic of language, the only real gripe I had (which was pretty minor) was that all the other kids only ever spoke English, even to each other when Logan wasn't there or was unconscious; it was only Laura who spoke Spanish but, if they'd all been raised by the Mexican nurses (but also ordered around by the American scientists) you'd expect them all to have a strong preference for and better grasp of Spanish.

Just seemed odd is all

That's pretty basic in the concept of a movie. I can't name a movie that manages two languages both taking up decent chunks of dialog with any skill. This bothers me less than the movie skipping people changing clothes or going to the bathroom and brushing their teeth and by that I mean not at all.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:15 pm UTC
by eSOANEM
Nah, this is a very different thing from the standard thing of just having people speaking a foreign language actually speak English with a foreign accent whilst throwing in a few words from that language; the issue here is the inconsistency. Tbh, I would have expected a lesser film to do with Laura what they did with the other kids, that is, after all, the norm (cf. the first avenger et al).

This was not a lesser film though. This was a good film with lots of good attention to detail. This showed in Laura. She barely spoke and exclusively in Spanish to start with and, as she opened up, she spoke more and also spoke more English until, by the end, she mostly spoke English; the language reflects her overall story ark.

Granted, the other kids don't get a full story ark in the same way but I'd have expected some consistency. I see two plausible conclusions:

  • The kids did actually get a similar story ark about opening up to their respective helpers hence the speaking English by the end
  • The kids didn't get such a story ark and just magically speak better English in a way inconsistent with the attention to detail shown in the rest of the film

The first of these doesn't seem to stack up because several of them have even less of an accent than Laura. More importantly, none of them are still accompanied by someone like Logan and that two-way attachment is kind-of necessary to a Laura-style ark. Furthermore, the implication throughout the film is that pretty much all the x-men are gone and so there's no obvious American mutant to help the other kids meaning they'd probably have to have made it the whole way with the nurse who broke them out (who were Mexican) which also makes the opening-up (to an American) ark much less likely. All of this seems to make the first option completely implausible to me.

That leaves the second option.

Of course, I'm aware that in practice, it was almost certainly due to the fact that the other kids weren't exactly big parts and so it was probably a matter of making casting easier for the (smaller) parts. Nonetheless, it was a slight disappointment to me.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 4:56 pm UTC
by freezeblade
mosc wrote:That's pretty basic in the concept of a movie. I can't name a movie that manages two languages both taking up decent chunks of dialog with any skill. This bothers me less than the movie skipping people changing clothes or going to the bathroom and brushing their teeth and by that I mean not at all.


I feel that Inglourious Basterds did a pretty decent job of not sticking everyone in the Translation Convention trope, but more Surprisingly good foreign language and Hiding Behind the language barrier with plenty of Bilingual Bonuses (Warning, TV Tropes). But I admit that this movie is an outlier in this respect.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 6:09 pm UTC
by Zohar
It's certainly not difficult to do. This sounds a lot like a marketing decision. I don't think many people would avoid the movie if it had ten extra lines in Spanish.

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 7:25 pm UTC
by SDK
It is pretty difficult to do if you want to stick with the complete lack of subtitles throughout the movie (which I loved). Those kids communicated actual information with Logan. Can't have them doing that and still further the story (though they probably could have called out to each other in Spanish while choosing to speak English to Logan).

Re: Logan

Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2017 11:11 pm UTC
by eSOANEM
Yeah, I'm not advocating a complete lack of English from them; just saying that for consistency's sake they probably ought to be using English and Spanish in a similar mix to that Laura was using early on/maybe midway through the film.

I'm 99% sure it was done to save one of time or money on casting. Finding 1 good child actor who speaks fluent spanish is tricky, finding half a dozen gets very hard indeed (even if you allow them to be less good and speak less good spanish).

Re: Logan

Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 3:36 pm UTC
by SDK
While true, it's certainly not hard to teach a kid how to say "Aye-yoo-da-may!" instead of "Help!" for a particular scene. That sort of thing would have at least shown that Spanish was their mother tongue.