"Logan" Review: Hugh Jackman, forever.

Rating: 8/10 (2 March 2017)

It will be extremely hard for to continue the "X-Men" franchise after "Logan", should they choose to do so. This film is so immersed into itself that the potential consequences from the events that take place here put a huge question mark on not only if the films will continue, but also if they should continue. "Logan", apart from that, will make you leave the theater with your heart in your mouth, potentially bringing a tear out of your eye. Director James Mangold has put together a film for Hugh Jackman that marks and defines "The Wolverine" forever.
Set in the year of 2029, "Logan" presents Logan (Hugh Jackman) under circumstances that are very allusive and connected to the character's past. Patrick Stewart's performance as Charles Xavier is so vulnerable and realistic that it makes for more than usual humanely devastating moments during the film. Xavier copious seizures and Alzheimer's symptoms require Logan's care, with the help of Caliban (Stephen Merchant) who unlike the other two does not contribute to the film's strong sentimentality. X-23, played by Dafne Keen, serves as the link between Xavier and Logan's relationship.
It is Stewart's performance, along with Jackman's, the driving force of "Logan". To think back on all that Logan and Xavier have gone through in the past, particularly the many instances when Logan did things he never wanted to do and took solace in Xavier's words, is heart breaking. Here we have a Professor X who is dealing with a terrible mistake from the past that is linked to the disappearance of most, presumably, mutants, while being taken care of by Logan, who is not only dealing with his physical disease â€“ adamantium poisoning â€“ but also with the fact that he cannot truly find a purpose to continue to live under these circumstances.
That is the film's greatest achievement. The depiction of these characters' lives in such a completely different lens from what it what also seen in "X-Men" and "Wolverine" movies do indeed, though not entirely, justify the "Dark Knight" comparison. What make it close to Christopher Nolan's 2008 masterpiece are the subtle moments; the moments when the eyes, a walk, or the tone of voice allows the audience into the character's soul. In a farmhouse scene halfway through the movie, Xavier delivers a speech in bed when he speaks of how long he had not felt as happy he was in that moment. It is simply mesmerizing. From Stewart's performance, to the sublime use of sunlight and melancholic aura of the frame.
Where it falls short of being Nolan-worthy, however, is in balancing the overall tone of the film. This lack of subtlety is mainly due to choices related to Keen's performance and the use of explicit language. The language is not the problem. The problem is when the audience laughs at a curse word, when it was clearly not the intention behind the camera. This, of course, has to do with Mangold's poor choices. It is perhaps due to business reasons, to keep in a humorous aspect to the film that Fox feels necessary business-wise. Or, perhaps â€“ and I would like to believe this to be the case â€“ it is purely Mangold's own personal choice. That would mean that yes, he was trying to do the film's realistic and poignant tone justice and simply made the wrong choice. That only proves just how hard it is to make a superhero movie in this fashion, and how Christopher Nolan is, indisputably, a genius.
"Logan" is the coming of age "X-Men" movie. It is the culmination of the story of the character that was defined as the face of the franchise. It hits you like a train; it catches you off-guard, and out of the blue you are experiencing a movie dealing with disease, with death, with finding a purpose to keep on going. In a western. In a "Wolverine" movie. This one is special.
8.5/10