In the not-so-distant future, the man once known as Wolverine, Logan (Hugh Jackman), is living / hiding on the US-Mexico border, his once formidable powers diminished by age.  He works as a limo driver to afford meds for an ailing Professor Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), whose psychic powers have become dangerous as his brain falters with age.  When a woman recognises Logan and asks for his help, the disillusioned former X-Man fobs her off.  But soon dark forces and a mysterious girl (Dafne Keen), not to mention his innate moral code, will force his claw-wielding hand…

While Marvel Studios harp on about how they mix other genres into their superhero movies, with such-and-such a film being superheroes-cum-political-thriller, or this-and-that film being superheroes-cum-heist-movie, and so on, everything they produce is really merely colouring within the lines of the superhero picture, they’re just using different crayons to do it.  Logan not only uses different crayons, but it’s colouring a whole new picture, too.  It’s not the first superhero movie to operate at a remove from the standard big-budget tropes of the genre, but it is perhaps the first from a major franchise to dare to step so far outside the norm.  As I intimated at the start, the feel of the piece is more indie neo-Western road movie than CGI-driven superhero spectacular, though to imply it stints on expensive action thrills would be disingenuous.  It still cost $97 million, after all, and so works at ways to retain the favour of a blockbuster-seeking crowd.  Nonetheless, the overall impression is of a refreshing change for the subgenre, with a more distinctive feel than any of those aforementioned Marvel movies. 

That doesn’t mean it’s perfect, sadly.  Functionally speaking, Logan barely has a villain.  There are some ill-intentioned and dangerous people after X-23, so our heroes have to run away from them — that’s all the role they have to play.  Heading up the hunt is Pierce (Boyd Holbrook), a henchman figure who’s de facto lead villain purely because he gets the most screen time.  Unfortunately, he has more personality in his defining attribute, a CGI robotic arm, than in the rest of his characterisation combined.  The theoretical Big Bad is Dr Zander Rice (Richard E. Grant), an evil scientist who we’re told developed some kind of virus that all but wiped out mutantkind, but now seems incapable of tracking down a group of preteens.  He’s not on screen enough to make any kind of meaningful impression.  On the bright side, on my “how badly miscast is Richard E. Grant” scale (which ranges from “very badly” to “not that bad, I suppose”) this errs towards the positive end, precisely because of that lack of screen time.  Lastly there’s younger, fitter Wolverine clone X-24 (also Jackman), who’s at least intentionally devoid of personality — he’s been bred without it so he’ll be the perfect biddable killing machine.  Obviously he’s ripe for some sort of thematic commentary — on ageing; on morality; on heroism; on, frankly, anything — but it never comes. 

With the villainous side of the equation so unbalanced, we’re left primarily with our heroes.  Fortunately, they do take up the slack, mainly through a pair of fantastic performances from Jackman and Stewart.  Wolverine is undoubtedly the defining role of Jackman’s career, a part he’s played on and off for 17 years across seven movies (as a lead, plus a couple more cameos).  Here he’s the most human he’s ever been.  In many ways Logan was always one of the most relatable X-Men, one of our points of entry into their world and taking the piss out of them and the situation when it was called for.  He was still primarily a likeable character in a fantastical world though, whereas here he feels more like a real person, struggling with the physical detriments of ageing and (less explicitly) the metaphysical quandaries of what it was all for.  As he puts his time with the character to bed, Jackman gets to deliver his most nuanced and affecting turn in the role.  Neatly, it mirrors where it all began for this version of the character: protecting a young mutant girl struggling to come to terms with her dangerous powers in a world that’s out to get her. 

Stewart is every bit as good as a man defined by his mental prowess whose mind is failing.  Originally cast to play a statesman-like role in the series, here Stewart gets to have a bit more fun, to be a bit more cheeky, but also to tap into a bit more depth of emotion, as Charles struggles with whatever it was he did to land him in hiding in Mexico (I think there was some dialogue that explained it but, frankly, I missed it in the mumbly sound mix.  I’ll catch that on Blu-ray, then). 

Of course, they both die.  Normally that’d be shocking in a major studio blockbuster, but it’s quite clear Logan is playing by different rules, and in those rules the old good guys die.  Heck, nearly everyone dies, but the only deaths that matter are Charles’ and Logan’s.  What’s at least a bit interesting is how they die.  For Professor X, it’s almost ignominious, — in a bed, not even his own, stabbed by X-24 for virtually no reason, then later fading away in the back of a truck.  It’s not a grand heroic self-sacrifice while trying to save the world, the kind of death you’d expect for a character of his stature (and more or less the kind he got in The Last Stand, the first time they killed him off).  It’s a great life come to a meaningless end.  Well, Logan’s that kind of movie — it has no reverence for such things, just as life itself does not.  Conversely, the death of Wolverine / Logan / James Howlett (who is he, in the end?)  is a sacrifice, the selfish man of the movie’s opening giving himself up to save some kids; or, in grander terms, to save the future.  Ah, but he was never really selfish, was he?  It was an act.  An affection brought by the hard years.  He was always a good guy at heart.  Always an X-Man, as the neat final shot emphasises. 

So there is some thematic meat to tuck into here, even with the apparent dead-end (pun not intended) of the X-24 subplot.  Couple that with the many uncommon-to-the-genre plot and tonal points and you have a movie that does merit consideration as one of the finer superhero films.  However, the perception some espouse of this being brave or bold moviemaking is not inherent to the film.  If this were an original story starring new characters, especially if they didn’t have superpowers, it wouldn’t make it a bad film, but nor would it be perceived as being so original or revolutionary.  What is uncommon or remarkable is making that kind of movie with a well-known character, and in particular one who’s familiar from leading CGI-fuelled PG-13 summer spectacles. 

Is that alone enough to confer greatness?  Logan’s consistency of style and tone render it easily the best Wolvie solo movie (as much as I liked The Wolverine on the whole, its climax was horrible), but for this X-fan it’s not enough to usurp the top-draw traditional superheroics to be found in the three or four genre classics produced by the main series.  Perhaps time and re-viewing will increase Logan in my estimation, however, because it is a very strong film indeed. 

2 thoughts on “Logan (2017)”

I like the comparison you made between this and the first X-Men.  There are parallels there that are a nice touch.  I totally agree this is a nice change of pace and feels different than other superhero movies.  I enjoyed this one a lot and I think it may be my favourite X-Men movie, though that is a tough thing to say because this franchise has produced some very good films.  The understated tone of Logan felt right for the X-Men, who initially weren’t supposed to be word-beaters individually, just misfits trying to find a place.  This film more than any other captured that feeling. 

Yeah, none of the other X-Men movies have been so low-key as this, but I hope it’s a move they follow going forward.  Not for every film, necessarily, but a variety of tones and scales can only be a good thing when we’re getting so many of these movies.