More of the same while trying to do an Eastwood flick

Rating: 7/10 (9 July 2017)

James Mangold and Hugh Jackman teamed up to make a different Wolverine movie: more serious, inspired by westerns, in which our hero has to deal with mortality and regret, while being on the lam with a girl. That movie was called "The Wolverine". For "Logan" they decided to do something bold and different by... doing exactly the same, while adding nothing to Wolverine's story, except an ending. Okay, this time the girl is a child with special powers (you know from the trailer and the DVD jacket that she is connected to Wolverine; I won't spoil details), which makes the plot go exactly in the same beats as as every adult-with-child-on-the-lam flick, from "Escape to Witch Mountain" and "Firestarter" to "Midnight Special". The villains in their vans and helicopters behave like all those on-the-lam villains who somehow always arrive quickly to wherever the protagonists are, even at times when there's no plausible reason. Innocent people are befriended on the way, and pay a price.
But yes, it is well shot, with well directed action, some style, and good performances. Back in the 80s, "X-Men" fans were campaigning for a movie to be made, with Clint Eastwood a fan favorite choice as Wolverine. Thus it is perhaps no surprise that style-wise and plot-wise, "Logan" behaves like if Clint Eastwood had made it, taking inspiration from multiple Eastwood flicks: "Pale Rider", "Unforgiven", "A Perfect World", and even small shades of "Gran Torino" and "Million Dollar Baby". It also references some classic anti-Westerns of the 1950s, going as far as including a "Shane" homage. All of this it pulls off well, but you do feel like you've seen this too many times before.
"Logan" also pretends to be a "Mad Max"-like dystopian movie, but then it turns out that they're just in the US-Mexico border, and other than the lack of new mutants, the world looks exactly like the 2010s, despite it being 2029 or so. In fact, there's been no change to every day technology, including cars, cell phones and TVs. Only the villains seem to possess advanced technology, in the shape of cybernetic arms and advanced cloning abilities. The villains (The Reavers) are unimpressive, with the most powerful one being a metaphor of Wolverine's aging issues. And no, Nathaniel Essex is not in this movie, despite how it was promoted. Boyd Holbrook plays Pierce as a cunning dangerous redneck, somewhat of a cross between Gary Oldman and Woody Harrelson, but less strong.
The story does not do us any service. Aside from the standard plot themes for this sub-genre of 'grumpy dying hero reluctantly takes on a child and goes on the lam', there's little added to the story. We learn of a grim fate of a half-dozen unnamed X-Men, but have no clue what happened to the dozens of other characters. We are left wondering how Wolverine suddenly started aging rapidly, with no good explanation given, or to how/when he retreated to a menial existence. We also wonder how Professor X turned into a babbling fool, other than dementia at age 90. Jackman and Stewart turn in great performances, even if Stewart's character bares only little resemblance to his prior incarnations. Perhaps you can justify it with how dementia changes some great people.
What is different from the usual "X-Men" movies is the violent gore and the cursing. It shocks at first, then feels repetitive/gratuitous or over-the-top. I will say that the fight scenes are more effective, and overall in "Logan" the violence straddles a thin line between action and terror.
Saving the film overall is the good chemistry between the leads, the acting, and the fact that you are watching Wolverine in action on the big screen.