A review of "Logan" (2017)

Rating: 9/10 (7 March 2017)

I'm not sure I agree with quite all of the accolades that "Logan" (2017) has been receiving. (It's being compared with Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight," for example, as well as Frank Miller's medium-altering 1986 graphic novel, "The Dark Knight Returns.") It's still a damn good movie, though, and easily among the best of Fox's "X-Men" series. I'd give it a 9 out of 10, and I'd firmly recommend it.
This absolutely doesn't feel like a "comic book movie." It feels more like a brutally violent, sometimes introspective, road-trip drama — though all of the comic book elements are still there. I'd caution comic book fans that "Logan" was actually much darker than I expected — and, no, it wasn't just because of the visceral violence that could only be afforded by this movie's unusual "R" rating. There was a lot more that went on here that got under my skin  I just can't say more for fear of spoilers.
There is one thing I can tell you — there is none of the escapism of past "X-Men" films. (C'mon, for being about a supposedly oppressed group, those movies always made being a mutant look fun as hell, and even glamorous.) This film follows an aging, ailing Wolverine, and an even worsely afflicted Professor X — subsisting in secret in the Mexico desert. What's more, they and their aging friend, Caliban, appear to be among the last of their kind, thanks to an unexplained, decades-long absence of new mutant births. And what little exposition is given about the other X-Men suggests that they are dead. If you've been a fan of these iconic characters for a long time, then seeing Wolverine and Professor X being so painfully not larger than life is jarring, and even sad. No matter what is the outcome of its story, this movie's plot setup alone can make an "X- Men" fan a little despondent.
The action is damned good. The movie surprised me by how smart it was, too. Its examination of violence and its consequences is unflinching. Also, we've been instructed through so many "X-Men" movies that humans should not seek to contain the mutants out of fear  yet "Logan" adroitly and subtly questions such one-sided moralizing. The acting, across the board, is extremely good — predictably from Hugh Jackman and Patrick Stewart, and surprisingly from 11-year-old Dafne Keen. She's perfect as the young, imperiled, yet ferocious Laura.
My complaints with "Logan" were minor. One thing that irked me was my own confusion about whether it was "canon." Are we to assume that this takes place in the "X-Men" movies' "main continuity?" Or is this a parallel universe or a different timeline? The feel of this film is so radically different that I found it difficult to imagine it following the previous films (although the post-credits sequence in 2016's "X-Men: Apocalypse" seems to set up "Logan.") I thought that this was based on Marvel Comics' "Old Man Logan" storyline  wasn't that an alternate universe story?
Maybe adding more to my confusion, "X-Men" comic books actually exist in the universe of this film. Laura carries a bunch of them, and they are a minor plot point. Does this mean that the humans in this universe have finally accepted mutants, enough to create comic books about them being heroes? How did that come about?
My second criticism of "Logan" is that the character of Laura is thinly rendered. Saving her is the plot device for the entire film, and Keen is absolutely talented. Shouldn't we know more about her, and about her relationship with Logan and Charles?
All in all, this was a superb film, though — with an unexpected tone and a surprisingly sober, risk-taking approach to Jackman's avowed last appearance as Wolverine. If you like the "X-Men" movies at all, then you should definitely see it.