Nice crossovers. 
Spoilers Logan - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Home Video Release of the movie:
Remove remains solid and great. The awesomeness of X-23 is still fun to watch.
The "Noir" version of the movie (an all B&W cut of the film) is included (at least with the BD version) and it works very well. Color and B&W movies are/were filmed filmed very different and making a color movie into a B&W one isn't as easy as just simply turning off the color, the translation works about as well as colorizing older movies. But here the Noir version works well, not sure how the movie was filmed but seems it was filmed in a manner it nicely makes the transition to B&W without standing out and looking like you're watching it on a malfunctioning TV.
I noticed more the "Fucks" said by Logan and how they got maybe a bit gratuitous with them, but it didn't impact the movie as trying too hard to be edgy to "earn" the R-Rating as some critics have said, the mostly stand out due to not being used to having them in a "superhero movie." I've not watched any of the special features or listened to the commentary yet.
I do like listening to the "Descriptive Audio" track despite my lack of need for it and it's done nicely here in conveying the emotion and such of the movie.
Remove remains solid and great. The awesomeness of X-23 is still fun to watch.
The "Noir" version of the movie (an all B&W cut of the film) is included (at least with the BD version) and it works very well. Color and B&W movies are/were filmed filmed very different and making a color movie into a B&W one isn't as easy as just simply turning off the color, the translation works about as well as colorizing older movies. But here the Noir version works well, not sure how the movie was filmed but seems it was filmed in a manner it nicely makes the transition to B&W without standing out and looking like you're watching it on a malfunctioning TV.
I noticed more the "Fucks" said by Logan and how they got maybe a bit gratuitous with them, but it didn't impact the movie as trying too hard to be edgy to "earn" the R-Rating as some critics have said, the mostly stand out due to not being used to having them in a "superhero movie." I've not watched any of the special features or listened to the commentary yet.
I do like listening to the "Descriptive Audio" track despite my lack of need for it and it's done nicely here in conveying the emotion and such of the movie.
Saw it last weekend. I have no qualms about "Fuck"s, but I know some people do, so it mainly made me wonder how everyone onset felt about swearing around an 11-year-old girl. Especial Hugh, who had to shout it in her face.
The kid was brilliant, both as an actress and as an athelete. Both stars had stunt doubles, but both of them did a lot of their own stunts too. The film overall was sort of just there. Another compilation of fights and action scenes. I enjoy the characters and actors, and there was the occasional standout scene, so I enjoyed myself.
Is there anybody who DIDN'T know that family was going to die horribly? I mean, come on.
The kid was brilliant, both as an actress and as an athelete. Both stars had stunt doubles, but both of them did a lot of their own stunts too. The film overall was sort of just there. Another compilation of fights and action scenes. I enjoy the characters and actors, and there was the occasional standout scene, so I enjoyed myself.
Is there anybody who DIDN'T know that family was going to die horribly? I mean, come on.
Apropos of nothing; It never ceases to amuse and baffle me how some people get more upset about repeated use of four letter words in a movie, than they do about frequent explicit violence in the very same movie. See also: nudity (even partial!) Seriously, I've seen people straightfacedly complain about the half a second of nipple flash in this movie (which I didn't even notice on first watch) as going too far.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with these things either, it's just the double standards and wonky priorities of some movie-goers blows my mind.
To be clear, I don't have a problem with these things either, it's just the double standards and wonky priorities of some movie-goers blows my mind.
Last edited:
I didn't have a problem with any of it, just the that F-Bomb use was a touch gratuitous, perhaps. Almost like they were flaunting they were doing it because they could.
But, like Logan said to Charles, when admonished for his language in front of Laura, "Oh she can cut a man in half, but can't hear a few naughty words?"
But, like Logan said to Charles, when admonished for his language in front of Laura, "Oh she can cut a man in half, but can't hear a few naughty words?"
Eh, the movie kinda lost me when Chuck so happily watched that violence-filled Western flick in the hotel. Given that Laura was still brand-new to the world outside her lab prison, and had just experienced and inflicted traumatic violence, one would think that he'd try to find something a tad more peaceful, like a nature documentary or something. But nooooo, Mangold had to set up the ̶p̶l̶a̶g̶i̶a̶r̶i̶s̶ er, quoting of Shane in that last scene. 
As I've said, I liked the movie fine. But I didn't find it anywhere near as meaningful or sophisticated as it presented itself as.
As I've said, I liked the movie fine. But I didn't find it anywhere near as meaningful or sophisticated as it presented itself as.
As westerns go, I really wouldn't rate 'Shane' as being exceptionally violent. More sombre and introspective than the usual lighter, shallow fare (gee, I wonder if there's a metatextual implication there!? 
)
I can absolutely believe that Charles saw this movie as a child and had no problem with Laura watching it...I mean she not long ago decapitated a bloke, dismembered and/or maimed several others, was herself impaled by a harpoon and intentionally took a bullet to protect Charles. I think she's past the point where pretend violence is going to have the slightest impact.
If one actually pays attention to the dialogue she recites at the end, it should be pretty obvious Charles was attempting (and succeeding) to teach her something. Always the Professor, even when senile and incontinent.
)I can absolutely believe that Charles saw this movie as a child and had no problem with Laura watching it...I mean she not long ago decapitated a bloke, dismembered and/or maimed several others, was herself impaled by a harpoon and intentionally took a bullet to protect Charles. I think she's past the point where pretend violence is going to have the slightest impact.
If one actually pays attention to the dialogue she recites at the end, it should be pretty obvious Charles was attempting (and succeeding) to teach her something. Always the Professor, even when senile and incontinent.
Which is exactly the problem. I'm no expert on the matter of child survivors of violence and trauma, but I'm pretty sure that being exposed to and inflicting violence doesn't impart maturity - indeed, it probably delays maturity, by exploding all norms of acceptable behavior. See: her willingness to maim/kill the gas station clerk for daring to ask for payment for the items she took. So showing her a violent movie would probably reinforce her flawed assumptions about violence being a normal, appropriate response to everyday situations.
Yes, Your Geniusness, I got the movie's drift. But that moment of quoting "there's no living with a killing" is unearned, because at no point does she feel any dismay about anyone she's hurt/killed. Hell, neither does Logan, really, what with the movie beginning with him gratuitously killing several thugs. He could have walked away, albeit at a loss to his car/job, rather than living with the guilt of killing even one more lowlife, or he could have been emotionally wrecked by having to fight them off, even if he didn't actually kill them. Instead, he shrugs off their deaths pretty much immediately, and is much more concerned about his ruined shirt and chronic pain than the loss he's inflicted upon their families.
So, if one actually "pays attention to the dialogue", one sees that the Charles' "lesson" only works because Mangold cheats by writing that it works, without earning it in any meaningful way. Compare that to DoFP, where Charles urges Mystique to stop the cycle of violence, even if it means forgoing understandable desired vengeance against Trask for murdering all the mutants he captured and experimented upon. Logan may have more f-bombs, blood spurts, and gratutous female nudity, but DoFP has the most sophisticated approach to violence in the franchise.
Last edited:
Could have, but didn't. Just because he chose to kill rather than let them take what they wanted from him, doesn't mean he liked doing it or doesn't regret it.
Laura "I've hurt people too."
Logan "You're gonna have to learn how to live with that."
Laura "They were bad people."
Logan "All the same."
^ So you're saying that after quoting Shane by saying "There's no living with a killing," Laura should have added "unless you shrug it off and live with it, because fuck them, there's really no losing a car?"
If Laura doesn't agree with the quote, which is a pretty black-and-white one, then its placement there is pretty much meaningless. It could have been any quote. She could have said "He wasn't trying to be a great man, he was just trying to be a man, and would let History make its own judgment." And if a movie's final quote is meaningless, well, that's mediocre storytelling, appropriating the trappings of profundity.
If Laura doesn't agree with the quote, which is a pretty black-and-white one, then its placement there is pretty much meaningless. It could have been any quote. She could have said "He wasn't trying to be a great man, he was just trying to be a man, and would let History make its own judgment." And if a movie's final quote is meaningless, well, that's mediocre storytelling, appropriating the trappings of profundity.
No, I'm saying that people make decisions every day, and sometimes those decisions involve harming someone else instead of harming yourself. A person can make decisions that they regret, and still make the same decision again. And regret it again. Everyone makes compromises, everyone regrets.
And for what it's worth, the car scene you keep referencing wasn't about Logan murdering innocent people. Those Chollos chose to act a certain way, just as Logan did. Just because he doesn't want to kill, doesn't mean he'll just roll over and show his belly.
Is it black and white? Does the quote mean that you should kill yourself if you kill someone else? Or does it mean that you can never have a life of your own after killing? Or does it mean that you'll always regret killing? It's a brand that sticks, sure...but what does that brand entail?
Also, how do you know if Laura agrees with it? And even if she doesn't agree with it, even if she doesn't fully understand it yet, that doesn't preclude her using it as an example of what she thought Logan believed.
I would have liked a flashback or something stronger to explain why mutants are nearly extinct.
-We see Xavier is sad that he did something wrong
-The radio mentions a paralysis that happened a few years ago
-We see Xavier is sad that he did something wrong
-The radio mentions a paralysis that happened a few years ago
The Westchester incident (Charles had a seizure) was responsible for the deaths of some X-Men and injury of civilians, but that is not why there are no mutants left. That was explained later by Xander Rice, that they've been treating the food to put an end to mutantkind.
Oh was that the "corn syrup" discussion with the family at the farm? Sometimes it was hard to understand people because they were talking under their breath.
The treating of food also zoomed pass me.
The treating of food also zoomed pass me.
Yeah, there's no one scene that lays everything down for us. You get dribs and drabs that you have to piece together for the most part. When I say Xander "explained" it, it'd probably be more correct to say he referred to it.
Like the Westchester thing, we get part of it on the radio and part of it later when Charles remembers what he did. (The scene where he's talking to X-24, thinking it is Logan.)
Like the Westchester thing, we get part of it on the radio and part of it later when Charles remembers what he did. (The scene where he's talking to X-24, thinking it is Logan.)
Laura shows zero sign of regretting hurting anyone. Neither, for that matter, does Logan, to any significant degree. He implies in the dialogue you quoted that he doesn't love everything he's done, but that's different than genuine regret.
He could have incapacitated the thieves without killing them. Instead, he lost his temper and did just that... and then he shrugged it off and the incident was never mentioned again. Another example of Mangold having his cake (we finally see Logan's most deadly rages in all their bloody glory) and eating it, too (but violence is bad for the soul, mmkay?)
It means, at the very least, that killing takes a toll on the psyche/soul - but Logan himself isn't shown to reflect that. He's upset about what happened to his fellow mutants, but unlike X-Men Origins: Wolverine, this movie doesn't show him ruing his own violent deeds.
And as I've argued, there's little to no onscreen evidence in this movie he does believe that. So she doesn't believe it, and he didn't believe it, and the content of the movie itself doesn't argue for it. As I've shown, it was an unearned stab at appropriating profundity.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
