With their extended metaphor about mutation as a stand-in for all the many reasons humans find to be bigoted toward other humans, the X-Men stories have always been perhaps the most grounded of the superhero universes, at least in their exploration of what it means to be “super” in a world where “super” is feared and hated, where “super” is ostracized. The mutants of X-Men are just ordinary people with unusual talents that, for the most part, they have to hide, and the movies in this series — of which we have had 10, counting this one, since the series debuted in 2000 with X-Men — have been as much about realistic people trying to come to terms with their abilities as they’ve been about the usual comic-book action thrills.
And among the characters we might call the alpha males of comic-book superdom, Wolverine — aka James Logan — stands apart, too. Though he is close to invulnerable, he has none of the cheerful godhood of Superman. Unlike Batman, he did not seek out a career righting wrongs. And very much unlike Captain America, he was tricked into consenting to the experimentation that augmented his mutant powers, a horrific and invasive violation of his body (when a mad military man surgically traded in Logan’s bone claws for ones made of the superstrong medal adamantium). There has never been a more reluctant hero than Wolverine. There has, perhaps, never been a hero so abused by life and so cursed by his abilities.
But even the X-Men series has never seen a film like Logan before: raw, rageful, tormented, human. This doesn’t look like any other superhero movie ever, either… from any comic-book universe. No spandex or capes here. There’s almost nothing by way of FX — lots of car chases and crashes, lots of stuntwork, yes, but almost all of that seems to be practical. There’s none of the big brash sci-fi whiz-bang we’ve come to expect from the genre, and of which there has always been plenty in this series. Hell, there’s barely much in the way of color, even: director James Mangold (Knight and Day, 3:10 to Yuma) and cinematographer John Mathieson’s (Pan, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) muted palette of desert browns and industrial grays mirrors the grim mindset of down-on-his-luck Logan and the emotional and physical depletion he’s running on these days.

“These days” is 2029, and Logan (Hugh Jackman: Eddie the Eagle, Chappie) is hiding out along the Mexican border, eking out a scant living as a limo driver in El Paso. He’s got 90-something Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart: Ted 2, Green Room) tucked away with him, keeping the elderly mutant mostly doped up all the time because he’s having telepathic seizures that conk out everyone in the vicinity. (They’re in the middle of nowhere. There’s no one else around except another mutant, Caliban [Stephen Merchant: I Give It a Year, Movie 43], who’s helping Logan take care of Charles.) Something is wrong with Logan: he’s covered in scars and walks with a limp, which means his mutant superhealing isn’t working for some reason. He’s going gray and getting old, but it’s more than that, too: he looks like hell, actually. Something is very wrong with him. (In case you’re wondering, the story here bears no resemblance whatsoever to Mark Millar’s graphic novel Old Man Logan, though the film’s title is perhaps an homage.)
Something is wrong in the larger world, too: no new mutants have been born for 25 years. It’s like Children of Men for mutants. (The science fiction worldbuilding here is minimal, and sneaky, and all the more effective because of it. Driverless trucks passing by in the background on a freeway, for instance, are somehow creepy and eerie in their modified familiarity: they have no cabs, which makes them seem decapitated.) Except out of nowhere little Laura (a ferocious Dafne Keen) appears; she’s around eight years old, she has mutant powers like Logan’s, and she needs to get somewhere safe, away from the mysterious and menacing Pierce (Boyd Holbrook: Morgan, Jane Got a Gun), who is pursuing her for reasons that will later become clear. Will Logan please drive her to a place in North Dakota called Eden, allegedly a refuge for young mutants (others also exist!)? Logan doubts such a place is real, but his reluctant heroism has been engaged…
Everything that is shocking and dark and upsetting and surprising here — of which there is much — is all the more so all of those things because Logan is not an action movie: it’s a personal drama that only happens to be set in a parallel reality where mutants exist. Jackman has always given Logan an appealing emotional vulnerability under the character’s gruff exterior, but here that engages new depths of empathy on our part with Logan’s new physical susceptibilities, not only for the character but for the actor as well. The fantasy of superpowers and the blow their deterioration must mean to a man like Logan takes on a new poignancy when we consider that playing a character who has not, previously, seemingly been subject to aging simply is not possible for a nonmutant man like Jackman to keep up forever. He’s been playing this character for 15 years, and while the actor is still extremely robust — the most dramatic FX here may be the hair-and-makeup job that makes Logan look way more beat-up than Jackman actually is — he is nearly 50. He wasn’t going to be able to play an ageless badass like Wolverine for much longer. (In fact Jackman has said this will be his last outing in the role.)

There is action here, though it’s more like a one-last-stand sort of Western such as Unforgiven than typical comic-book battles. The violence — of which there is plenty — is gory and pulpy and fleshy, which is surely what it would really be like in a world in which superhumans regularly beat the shit out of one another, and out of mere mortals. Logan is not bloodlessly cartoonish in the way that even really great comic-book movies have been, wherein entire city neighborhoods can be razed without a hint of the human carnage that would naturally accompany such a nightmare. The scale is small here, but the human toll is tremendous in the way that a single death can be depicted as far more terrible than mass destruction.
This third film in the Wolverine trilogy — after 2013’s The Wolverine (also by writer-director Mangold and also with cowriter Scott Frank) and 2009’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine — is by far the best of the bunch, and probably the best X-Men movie yet, except that Logan exists on its own plane of darkness, of willingness to be bold and definitive, of commitment to the human authenticity of its characters. I hope I’m wrong about this, but I suspect we shall not see its like again. It’s almost too legitimately harsh to be escapist. I felt nearly as worn out as Logan himself by the end.
















As if I needed any more encouragement to see this. I’m glad it lived up to it’s trailers.
I’m looking forward to seeing Caliban in this: having seen Merchant perform live in theatre back in July 2015 I’ve been wanting more serious stuff from him. And less of dross like the two films you referenced that he was in…
Merchant’s role is not enormous. Just an FYI.
I figured, but thank you anyway 👍
Very good movie indeed. Laura was superbly portrayed, and the dynamics between her, Logan and Charles are very powerful.
Very nice to see the reavers, Caliban, as well as some lesser known mutants like Ricktor.
Looking forward to see the rest of the new mutants’ adventures (maybe we’ll witness the the creation of Factor X? Generation X? Something else?)
I’m fascinated by this essay:
http://www.vulture.com/2017/03/logan-and-pop-cultures-love-for-silent-violent-little-girls.html
I’ll decide whether I agree with it once I’ve seen the film. In the meantime, I kind of want to write a science-fiction story, based on “The Little Mermaid,” about a girl who trades her voice for unbeatable fighting skills.
The writer there is not wrong. Laura is not the protagonist of this movie: she is there to motivate Logan to Have Feels. This movie would not score well on WATW.
True. Laura is fantastic in this movie, but it’s not her movie. She’s portrayed much more in depth in the various comic series devoted to her, with Marjorie Liu being (I think) one of her best writers. Hopefully future movies will take advantage of that.
I don’t really see Logan as a jump off point for a new X-Men series. I think it’s more of a one-off, “What If” story.
The hell she isn’t. Her character was one of the few things that made this movie watchable.
It can be argued that River Tam isn’t really the protagonist of Serenity yet she obviously had a greater role in that movie than that of simply motivating another character to have feels.
As far as I’m concerned, Laura is the Latina equivalent of River Tam.
That’s… exactly what the Vulture article argues (while pointing out that River isn’t the protagonist either). That’s the first thing it says. Maybe read the article first?
The protagonist isn’t always the most watchable character.
Fair enough. However, I obviously have a different view of River Tam than the author of that Vulture article does.
That doesn’t make her the protagonist.
She’s not.
That may be the case. But that still doesn’t make her the protagonist. And now you’re trying to apply my description of a character in one film to a character in another completely unrelated film.
Fair enough. However, I do see similarities in the two characters.
I suspect that Laura could be as talkative as the “Gaby” Solis character in Desperate Housewives and certain critics would still have a problem with her. Indeed, considering how often Latina women have been stereotyped as loud-mouthed chatterboxes, I can’t help but sense something very ironic about that whole op-ed.
Oh, well. Perhaps it would be better to just see Laura as a forerunner for the upcoming Alita: Battle Angel movie. I can already foresee some of the criticisms that will be lodged against that movie but we’ll see. I could be wrong.
Pointing out a problematic character trope doesn’t mean the only solution is to resort to a different problematic character trope. Another option would be to have (gasp!) MORE THAN ONE Latina character (and for that matter, more than one woman) in a movie, with a different personality, so that no single character has to bear the burden of representing everyone.
But no matter what the Alita movie’s other faults might be, it seems clear (from trailers and source material) that Alita will be the protagonist — the story will be about her motivations and growth and self-discovery, and told through her eyes. (See also: Saiorse Ronan’s Hanna.) Laura is not the protagonist in Logan, though as I’ve said, I’d love to see her in the central role someday.
Alita is definitely the protagonist of *Battle Angel.*
Fair enough. I would obviously love to see more diverse representations of Latin women myself, which is one reason I love the fact that the TV sitcom Brooklyn Nine-Nine has not one but two Latina main characters, both of whom are allowed to have different personalities. That should not be such a big deal in the year 2019 but unfortunately, it is.
And two distinctly different black men, and two distinctly different LGBTQ characters. B99 is doing an outstanding job at representation, and it’s funny as hell. It’s the second-best comedy on TV today.
Not to derail the thread, but out of curiosity: What’s the best comedy on TV today?
I’m pretty sure he means The Good Place, and he’s right. After he posted his comment, I realized that it’s just about the only comedy I watch,* other than political commentary on world events. (But Jon Oliver and Seth Meyers have been fantastic lately.)
*I do watch The Big Bang Theory, but I would never admit it in public.
I would probably amend my claim to: The Good Place is the best comedy on network TV. If we were to include the streaming services, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel on Amazon Prime is pretty forking fantastic too.
But I think we’ve gotten about as far away from a discussion of Logan as possible, so I think I should stop here. :-)
I’ve suggested before that MaryAnn start posting weekly recaps of The Good Place, (with a discussion thread underneath). If the idea appeals to anyone other than me, we should all send her lots of money, to make sure she has the time and the resources to write about the show.
Do you have to forking ask? ;-)
(In case you don’t get the reference: Danielm80’s right.)
Holy Forking Shirtballs, you’re right! I love that show (though I’m abstaining from watching the new season ’til it’s over, ’cause I’m a binger)
I would take your views more seriously if you hadn’t spent so much time defending stereotypes about people who are mentally ill.
Fair enough.
Truly adult notions of violence, the cost of violence, and the sometimes equally terrible tolls that love and restraint demand be paid.
It’s Logan’s “Sailing to Byzantium” (Or should that be “Adamantium’?)
A true return to the root of what made Marvel great: what would a real, actual HUMAN BEING think,do and say if they had superpowers?
Bravo.
This movie, Rogue One, a Trump presidency. We’re really living in the darkest timeline.
We just came out of the dark ages and are coming into the light. Donald Trump has basically been exonerated by James Comey and the extreme left is seeing it’s days as numbered.
Donald is a President unlike any we have had before. The politicians have managed to screw this country into the ground. Who’s to say a business man can’t save it. Our best days are ahead of us thanks to Donald Trump.
And to think they say conservatives have no sense of humor…
Hey, I think we can all agree that “Donald is a President unlike any we have had before”.
“Now is the summer of our discontent.
Made glorious winter by the House of Trump..”
On second thought, the current president bestrides the world a bit too much for my taste. Almost as if he were one of those huge colossus-type things. And some of his associates have been alleged to have a lean and hungry look…
Oh, you dear sweet child…
As opposed to that timeline in which the South won the American Civil War. Or the one in which the Axis Powers won World War II. Or the one in which the Soviet Union won the Cold War…
Yes, we’re living in dark times all right…
Thanks, Tonio, I was afraid somebody wouldn’t get the joke.
I’m going crazy! Help! Were those oil trucks that were speeding down the highway real or was that just for the movie?? They scared me for some reason, I suppose it’s the unfamiliar look about them. I hope someone will answer me. I’m upset the Imdb.com boards are gone now.
The auto-trucks? Those are just for the movie. They could be real by end of the 2020’s, but probably not much before that.
I don’t think driverless trucks are that far off: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/25/driverless-beer-run-bud-makes-shipment-with-self-driving-truck.html
Huh…
SPOILER
.
.
.
Did we ever find out what happened in Westchester? I don’t think it was ever spelled out, but it’s possible I missed it. (Or it could be a reference to Age of Apocalypse, which I’m unlikely to see anytime soon.)
I suppose the logical conclusion is that Charles caused a “quake” which killed a large number of people, but I feel as though there are details I should have caught and missed completely.
http://www.slashfilm.com/logan-and-the-westchester-incident/
That actually clarifies something else: I couldn’t for the life of me figure out, if they were driving from El Paso to “North Dakota”, why in the hell they would divert to Vegas. There aren’t many futuristic touches to Logan‘s 2029, but a “Strip” in OKC seems to be one of them.
I don’t think OK City’s strip is even futuristic: there are already lots of casinos in the area: http://okc.about.com/od/casinosgaming/tp/okccasinos.htm
there are lots of casinos everywhere there are Native American Reservations. But, even in OKC, they’re mostly scattered outside the cities proper. But I agree we’re not far from seeing Strips popping up in cities, across the the West. And 2029 is barely more than a decade out.
Is it a strip, though? Or is it just one casino? I can’t recall…
I think it was, but I could be wrong. I couldn’t find where the shot those exteriors, though I did find that the interiors were shot in Louisiana.
Oh dear, I completely missed the fact that the Westchester Incident killed the X-men. Now I am very sad. :-(
Terrible movie. Plot holes, convenient limitations and non-kills to keep the story moving and not true to x-men lore. Reviews have been given by those who can’t possibly appreciate the past films. Gritty and real, yes, but no need in this this franchise.
Really?
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2000/07/x-men-review.html
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2003/05/x2-x-men-united-review.html
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2011/05/x-men-first-class-review.html
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2014/05/x-men-days-future-past-movie-review-time-hope.html
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2009/05/x-men-origins-wolverine-review.html
Pffft.
I think Bill was going for a G2 and a reverse O2.
Yup. That’s me. No appreciation of the previous films. None.
I absolutely hated the movie as well. While I can appreciate the desire to do something different with the genre, I fail to see any originality here. If I wanted to see something raw, depressing, boring, and ultimately predictable, I could watch the scab form on a cut on my forearm.
Great review MaryAnn! I love this movie too. The scene where Charles unleashes his powers is staying with me. There are other standout scenes, too, such as when the mutants visit the family and experience normalcy for a poignant fleeting evening. One note – I think Laura is actually 11 – her “medical” form is shown at one point and reads 132 months. TBC!