Disappointment

Rating: 4/10 (10 March 2017)

I look at "Logan" as the "Alien 3" of the X-Men franchise. It basically gives a gigantic middle finger to everything that came before it. It destroys everything the movie that proceeded it ("Days of Future Past") accomplished. In "DOFP", all of mutant kind are about to be destroyed, but by the heroic actions of Logan himself, they survive. Then, according to the film "Logan", they all get killed off a few years later anyways. It has been said that one of the big themes of "Logan" was disappointment. I agree. I was very disappointed in this film.
"Logan" is annoyingly low on information. We are thrown into this terribly depressing future without a whole lot of explaining as to how we got here. As I watched, I kept waiting for a scene where things were laid down for the audience. It never came. The best we got were a few vague references here and there. There was something called "The Westchester Incident", but the reference was so fleeting that I barely caught it. There was also another part near the end where the main villain claims that he had something to do with the lack of new mutants being born and that he is Striker's son? I think? It wasn't very clear plus the dude's last name wasn't actually Striker, which further confused the issue. Later on, I hopped online and had a few things clarified (such as the "Westchester Incident"), but why weren't they clearer in the film in the first place?
Another issue I have with this film is how it treats the deaths of its two main characters. First, with Xavier, he is stabbed unceremoniously by a clone of Logan about two-thirds the way through the movie. There are no heroics in this death, no greater purpose, no meaning. He's just stabbed and then dies. What a disservice to such an incredible and important character to this franchise.
Then there is Logan's death. Logan is impaled by a chunk of wood from a dead tree. The dude literally has a skeleton made out of adamantium, which is the world's most indestructible metal, but yet wood cuts right through it. What? Now, we are shown through the film that Logan is sick and his ability to heal is getting worse, but that shouldn't affect his crazy metal ribcage! They even go to great lengths to explain that the only thing that can really kill him is an adamantium bullet, but in the end a hunk of wood does just as well.
Then there is the "R" rating. Once again, if this were a true stand-alone movie and not part of a larger narrative, I'd mostly be OK with it. But of course it isn't. Everything that we got with the "R" rating was unnecessary. What we got was far more blood and gore (there was more than one decapitation), a dump truck full of f-bombs and even one scene where a woman in a bridal shower flashed her boobs. All of this could have been edited out and the film would have been fine.
Don't get me wrong, I am no prude. I've seen plenty of violent movies, heard plenty of f- bombs and seen plenty of nakedness on film. I'm fine with it, but it has to be there for a good reason. I didn't see a whole lot of good reason here. What really did it for me, though, was seeing a 10-11 year old girl running around slashing off people's body parts. That got to be a bit much for my taste and I began to wonder for whom that kind of stuff didn't bother? Once again, does our society have a bit of a violence fetish, one that has gotten so bad that watching children tear people to shreds is OK?
I think the reason for the rating has more to do with a popular trend in movies (especially comic book movies) nowadays than it does with serving this particular story. With the success of "Deadpool" last year, film studios realized that an R-rated super hero film is not only possible, but profitable. But as Malcolm hinted at in the movie "Jurassic Park", just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean that you SHOULD. For "Deadpool" it works. You can't do "Deadpool" without all that R-rated stuff. That is who "Deadpool" is and that's fine. With Wolverine, however, he's already been established throughout the previous 8 X-Men films. All of these R-rated "upgrades" now don't make a whole lot of sense.
When I read positive reviews for this film, the main point that is made is how good the dramatic performances are, especially from the two leads, Patrick Stewart and Hugh Jackman. In this case, I completely agree. They did a fantastic job. Even the little girl was amazing, I thought. That can be quite a rarity when you think about how hit and miss child actors are. However, even though most of the performances here are top notch, great performances do not a great film make. If the story sucks, what does it matter?
It is hard for me to imagine why Patrick Stewart or Hugh Jackman would be excited to work on a project like "Logan" once they read the script. Were they excited to basically negate all of the great work they did (and others did) in the previous X-Men films? They, better than anyone else, should understand what this whole series has been about since the beginning. Yes, "Logan" is unique and absolutely gave these actors something different to do with their characters. And yes, they gave stellar performances. However, there needs to be at least a little bit of respect for the source material (and its fans) than this. Much like the season premier of "The Walking Dead" this past fall, this seemed more like a kick in the pants for viewers than anything else.