2017: The Year in Film: Logan Review

So Fox's X-Men franchise - which is somehow still going relatively uninterrupted 17 years after the first film, which is totally cheesy in retrospect but also pretty much sparked the current superhero trend, has totally been a mixed bag. By my count there's Deadpool, which is awesome obviously, there are 3 very good films (X2, First Class and Days of Future Past), 3 mediocre to meh films (X-Men, The Wolverine, and X-Men: Apocalypse), and 2 straight up garbage toilet water films. (X-Men: The Last Stand, and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) So just a bizarre series in that it's lasted forever, is still somehow going, and definitely ended at one point only to get completely rebooted and then folded into the pre-existing continuity because everyone at Fox is on bath salts. Hugh Jackman has played Wolverine 8 times over 17 years counting Logan! That's insane!  By all accounts, this is his final time playing Wolverine (and Patrick Stewart's final as Professor Xavier as well), and the now-classic characters are sent off with a bang.

Of all the ups and downs of the X-Men films - Hugh Jackman has consistently been one of the best parts. A lanky singing, dancing Australian dude shouldn't be able to pull off Wolverine - but he does, and he's done it with gusto for a long time now. Even though the films themselves may not be the best no one can doubt Jackman's commitment to the role and his appreciation for the character. Enter: Logan. It's 2029 and the X-Men are no more. An older and worse for wear Wolverine has hung up the claws so to speak and spends his days working menial jobs and trying to stay under the radar. When a mysterious woman and a young girl suddenly appear - Logan finds himself drawn back in to a world he thought he'd left behind.

The Good: Jackman, as always, kills it. This version of Wolverine is older, slower, sadder and more nihilistic and melancholy, and that makes for a more compelling character than the indestructible killing machine of the earlier films. After the success of Deadpool, the decision was made to make Logan an R-rated film, and that was the best decision anyone associated with this film could have made. As a longtime X-Men fan, let me assure you that Wolverine is an R-rated character. He straight up murders people constantly in a way that your more classic superhero characters do not. This R-rating allows for a darkness and gravitas to seep into the film that simply wouldn't have been present with a PG-13 rating. It allows Jackman to really delve into the character and allows writer/director Mangold, and the rest of the cast to really insert themselves into a violent, quasi-dystopian world filled with dangerous people and plenty of blood. The best way I can describe this film is Clint Eastwood meets superheroes. It almost has an Unforgiven feel, where a fading gunslinger has one last ride in him. Mangold's screenplay is dark, bitterly funny, and touching where it needs to be, as Logan finds himself tasked with protecting a young girl who he's more connected to than he ever could have thought. The film is set in the future, and does a great job of trusting the audience to catch up with what may have happened in the interim. The characters don't dwell on the past or fill in questions with clunky exposition any more than absolutely necessary, and I appreciate that the film trusted its viewers enough to let them fill in the blanks. Jackman really sends Logan out with a bang here, turning in a bitterly melancholy performance and elevating the film to a place where X-Men films have never been before. Wolverine is a much more compelling character in a reduced state, and Jackman revels in the character's limitations. Patrick Stewart is great as well as an elderly, much reduced Professor Xavier, and newcomer Dafne Keen rises to the occasion as the mysterious Laura.



The Bad: this is going to sound lame, but bear with me. I've ALWAYS had a problem with the fight choreography in the X-Men films and the way they use Wolverine in particular. When you juxtapose the way Wolverine moves and fights with the way that say... Captain America moves and fights in Winter Soldier or Civil War and it's cheesy, slow, clunky and too dependent on wires and the like. The action sequences, even though they are terrific, lack a certain pop.  Additionally - the villain was a little disappointing. In a roster of villains as deep as the X-Men's and Wolverine's I feel that the choice was uninspired. Ultimately, these are relatively minor gripes with an extremely strong film.

In all, Logan is dark, violent, bitterly funny, masculine as hell, and more than a little touching. Jackman and Stewart have great chemistry, and Dafne Keen turns in a great performance sharing so much screentime with such talented actors. The film has the sentimentality and spirit of a western with the action chops of a modern superhero flick - it's not a combo that I knew I ever wanted to see but damned if it isn't pretty great. Yet again superhero flicks demonstrate their versatility - as the best western I've seen in years turned out to be a Wolverine flick. If this really is the last time that Jackman will be playing Wolverine - he gave the character a hell of a send off.

This is the best X-Men film by a pretty sizable margin.

8.5/10

2013: The Year in Film: "Prisoners" Review

Late late late. I know, you know, we all know. I'm catching up, you guys! First, a disclaimer... I secretly love neo-noir crime/mystery stories of the Dennis Lehane, George Pelecanos, James Ellroy variety. You know the ones, where no one is what they seem, everyone is a shade of grey, and red herrings abound. "The Killing" tried to be this in a television format, but that's a tale for another day. So I suppose what I'm trying to say is that my opinion for this flick was directly influenced by my general affection for the genre, read on with that in mind.

From a new writer (his only other credit is "Contraband" starring Mark freaking Walhberg) and a director making his first English-language film, and not adapted from any source material that I could find (rare in a world so chock full of mystery/crime novels), the flick features a great cast. Hugh Jackman, Terrance Howard, Paul Dano, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis and Maria Bello all exist in various states of being underrated, and Gyllenhall has proven that given the right material, he can be more than a pretty face. This story of a Thanksgiving kidnapping of two young girls promises to bring a small town to its knees and push two families to the edge.

So how is it?

The Good: The cast, as mentioned above, is stellar. Jackman is tremendous, and far more savage in this role than he ever was as Wolverine. (Seriously) Dano does "creepy" as well as anyone in Hollywood, and brings a sense of unsettled malaise to every scene he's in. Gyllenhall is great. He manages to bring a quiet intensity and quirky believability to a character who very easily could have been one-note. The atmosphere in this flick is top-notch as well, as the flick is extremely intense and effective, despite a long running time. The fact that this flick doesn't seem as long as, say, Zodiac (sorry, Jake!) is a testament to the effectiveness of the filmmaking and cast. Despite a number of Red Herrings, the plot never seems to be wandering for wandering's sake, and the resolution was a surprise, which is always the point of a mystery, isn't it? The best compliment I can pay this movie is that it feels like a good book of this genre, despite being a wholly original story. That's hard to pull off. Kudos.



The Bad: Gyllenhall's character suffers from a lack of characterization, which is a shame given the strength of his performance and the fact that on the surface, his character may well have been the most interesting in the whole movie if given a chance to be fleshed out. I think a few more Gyllenhall-centric scenes at the expense of the plot could have made his Detective Loki into a legitimately great movie cop. Additionally, the crushing dread and despair of the movie, which jumps right into the mystery with very little set up or framing, is really a grind, given the long runtime. You'll feel taxed at the end of this movie, and while it's not necessarily a bad thing, it is on the edge of being too much. This maybe would have been even better as a TV miniseries on premium cable?

All in all this is a bleak, intense mystery that stands up as a solid example of the genre. It's not SAYING anything that hasn't been said, but what it is doing is letting some great performers work on some meaty material and putting together an all around movie experience that pretty effectively duplicates the experience of reading a novel. That's not easy to do. The performances are the main draw here, but the atmosphere is pretty damn effective as well.

8/10. A very good, if not great flick for grown ups. If you haven't noticed, those are kind of rare, you guys.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Wolverine" Review

Yet another movie review that's several weeks late, and extra late in the big picture, considering I didn't even see this one until it had been in theaters for a few weeks. Go me!

Fox's treatment of the X-Men franchise has been a mixed bag. The first X-Men film is solid enough and the second is pretty damn good, but the third X-Men film and first Wolverine film are straight-up garbage. (X-Men: First Class is good though, you guys!) I will, however, argue until my last day that Liev Schrieber made a pretty damn strong Sabertooth and came kind of close considering how bad everything else was to redeeming X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The one constant through (almost) the entirety of Fox's X-Men run has been Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. While Jackman isn't a perfect Wolverine (I have my issues with him, but that's a topic for another day) he's pretty damn good, and brings a certain haunted intelligence and sensitivity to the character that has been lacking in certain iterations. He was done no favors by the writing and tone of the first film, so let's see if things get better the second time around, shall we?

Wolverine's time in Japan is the subject of one of the more beloved arcs of the character in the comics and was for a long time the rumored focus of a film by Darren Aronofsky. (of "Requiem for a Dream" and "Black Swan" fame)  Continued conflicts and problems led to Aronofsky's exit, so enter James Mangold (of "Walk the Line" and the underrated "3:10 to Yuma") to try to save Fox's Wolverine franchise by taking Marvel's fiercest character to the Far East.

Following the events of the shitty Brett Ratner X3 film that Fox for some reason didn't write completely out of continuity, Logan is doing what he does best - brooding about lost loves in the Canadian wilderness. He's a man haunted by a exceedingly long lifetime of violence, and largely broken. Into this scene comes a mysterious Japanese woman, who convinces Logan to accompany her to Japan, where her employer offers him thanks and a gift. Logan finds himself embroiled in a quasi-noir family/dynastic/corporate drama, and finds himself vulnerable in a way he's never been. So how is it?

The Good: Jackman is, as always, solid as Wolverine. He's clearly determined to treat this beloved character with dignity and respect, and his performance is testament to his skill as a performer. Personally, I've always thought that his Wolverine is too restrained and no where near savage enough (where is the beserker rage, Hugh?) but you certainly can't say that Jackman sells his character short. He brings a physical menace that immediately ups the gravitas of what could very easily be a silly enterprise. The direction is solid, and the plot is much improved from the muddled nonsense of the first Wolverine film.


With that being said, the film struggles to establish itself as something of any significance. Other than Jackman's Wolverine, there are no memorable characters or performances. The villains are cartoonish and seem to menace for menace's sake. I understand that Fox views its X-men franchise as a serious moneymaker for all ages, but Wolverine is a savage murderer who isn't done justice by cartoonish action and a PG-13 rating. His power is a healing factor that in and of itself suggests serious gore and unbreakable bones including 18 inch razor sharp blades. He kills DOZENS of people in this film, and blood is nowhere to be found. The only death that seems to concern him is Jean Grey's. I would be fascinated to see Wolverine given a darker treatment by someone like Aronofsky or Nicolas Winding Refn. (Imagine Jackman as Wolverine given the "Drive" treatment? That movie could damn well contend for awards) The plot is largely pointless and basically serves as a mechanism to get Wolverine back in the game for the next X-Men movie.

So ultimately, while this film is a serious upgrade from the first Wolverine film, that's not saying a whole lot rather than that it's rather middling as far as quality comic book adaptations go. The special effects look cheesy, the plot tries too hard to surprise, and other than Jackman, who gives it his characteristic all, there isn't a memorable character here. It's worth watching if you're bored on a Saturday. Wait for DVD/Netflix, guys.

6/10

2012: The Year in Film: "Les Miserables" Review

First, as a disclaimer, I'm probably in the .01% minority of American humanity in that I've read the Victor Hugo novel but never seen the musical.  (I was strange in my youth and enjoyed reading extremely long novels - the internet has nuked that ability into ash)  I do, however, due to years of involvement in choirs and such, have a moderate familiarity with the songs.  So I'm coming at this flick with a differing perspective than many. With that being said, adaptions of Broadway musicals aren't exactly huge business nowadays, but an adaption starring Hugh Jackman (Mr. Two-sides, your go-to Hollywood musical man) directed by Tom Hooper fresh off "The King's Speech" has as good a pedigree as any.  So how is it?

Les Miserables, roughly translated as "the wretched poor" or something similar, focuses on a convict, Jean Valjean, who has spent a solid chunk of his life incarcerated for a minor crime.  We follow Valjean through the years as he eludes the law (in the person of Javert), finds redemption, assumes a new identity and adopts a young girl.  The story culminates in the failed 1832 rising that was crushed by royalist forces.  Along the way we meet a number of poor and common folk struggling to carve out an existence in a climate of crushing social mores, extremely limited social mobility and shocking poverty.  I must say, there is something profoundly tone-deaf about rich white women loving a work decried in its day for being Revolutionary about the wretched poor and their struggles as if similar situations aren't somewhat mirrored today.  This film used the revolutionary technique of having the actors sing live as they act by using an earpiece with an accompanying pianist... allowing the actors to act while they sing rather than lip sync with separately recorded songs, as has been the technique in every other film musical.

The Good: Hugh Jackman gives the finest performance of his career.  Mr. Two-Sides was born to play Jean Valjean in a big screen production of Les Mis.  He brings the character to life and really takes advantage of the opportunity to act through song.  He's worth the price of admission alone.  Anne Hathaway really owns it.  Seriously.  She sets out to make a depressing character absolutely soul-crushing and completely succeeds.  Her rendition of "I Dreamed A Dream" is simply devastating.  Not exaggerating.  Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, even if they evidently were dressed by HBC's husband and using Ali G and Bruno's accents, still brought joy to their characters and were quite funny.  Eddie Redmayne was very good as young Marius.  What's most impressive about this film, though, is the production value.  It's sill recognizable as a broadway show, but everything is bigger and grander.  Some of the sets and shots are visually impressive and a joy to watch.



The Bad: It's become common place to bash Russell Crowe's singing.  I'm not going to do that... because Russell Crowe sang and can sing just fine.. the issue is that he can't sing and act at the same time.  And why should he be able to?  He's freaking Maximus.  Amanda Seyfried also is a rather poor singer with a weak, thin voice.  Helena Bonham Carter can't sing worth a darn and Sasha Baron Cohen needed to pick one accent and go with it.  With that being said, some difficulties with actual movie stars not being up to Broadway snuff isn't necessarily a horrible thing.

All in all, it looks great, it sounds (mostly) great, and there are some tremendous performances.  This is a timeless tale and one that deserves a big-budget treatment.  I'd say there's a solid chance this one will be getting some Oscar love in a month or so... it probably won't win in what's been a strong year for film, but Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman are all but assured noms.  Go see it, but be ready to bring some tissues.  Oh, and don't sit by old ladies that will hum along with the songs... that's just poor theater form.

7.5/10.