Darke Reviews | Ghost in the Shell (1995)

Wait wait ! Look at the year. Yes, I am keeping the boycott in place for this movie. Please, however, if you do want my final thoughts on the new movie – there is a VERY SPOILER section below. I did not see it. I will not see it. You cannot pay me to see it. The spoiler I got (and covered below) is a forever deal breaker on that ….thing.

What we are going to talk about today is the original anime, which I saw upon it’s stateside release way back in the day of 1995. Anime was all the rage in small town Maryland with folks drooling over Speed Racer in my senior class. During a cast party for one of our high schools drama club we watched Akira, so that would have been 93 or 94 for that show. I remember watching Ninja Scroll shortly after, Battle Angel, Gunsmith Cats, etc etc. I distinctly remember learning different styles of Anime at the time and levels to which they would go. Akira for instance was visually stunning but in many respects conceptually well over my head. So when I came across Ghost in the Shell during that time and watched it I was enthralled by the visuals – but did I get it?

Well no.

Ironic that the girl who has been questioning her own identity missed the point a few years prior when she saw a movie about questioning the identity and sense of self

So what can I say about the movie that you want to know?

Credit goes to the manga, the original book form, author Masamune Shirow; then adapted for screenplay by Kazunori Itô. The Anime is directed by Mamoru Oshii.

I want you to consider this was released in 1995. 21 years ago. The animation is still far and beyond some of what we get today for multipliers of the budget spent here. The movie is nothing less than a visually stunning masterpiece of artwork.  The last word there is important. This isn’t just animation – it is artwork – which means that every frame is an intentional choice by the director and artists to bring to life and focus on. As it is artwork it is also subjective and the movie does have multiple bits where it relies on the art to convey a feeling or express something it wants you to think about. The problematic part is these sections can linger a bit too long for many audiences. The messages are either not always clear or near hitting you over the head with what they are trying to do. It doesn’t detract from the beauty of the art, but does detract from the pacing of the movie.

What about the story?

Let me ask you some questions –

Are you alive?

What is life?

Define your sense of self.

Define your identity.

What makes these up? 

Now – what if you wanted to quit your job and you had to turn your body in and go back to another one?

Would you still be you?

These are overt questions the movie asks in text, not subtext (which isn’t spoiling anything) that it defies you to think about as it progresses along its primary axis. The Major, Matoko Kusanagi (voiced by Atsuko Tanaka) is a member of a paramilitary government organization in a world where nearly every human is partly cybernetic. Eyes, Ears, Part of your brain, joints, muscles – the odds are good you aren’t entirely human; but in this world that has left you vulnerable to a new breed of criminal who can hack your brain. Now, in our own world hackers can access the networks of our cars and take over steering controls by getting into the radio. No. I am not kidding. So consider then what a hacker could do if the computer was literally in your brain? Would you trust your own memories? Your own thoughts? Your own actions?

Thankfully the Major and the rest of Section 9 are there to stop people that do that kind of thing. The plot follows them trying to stop one in particular called the Puppet Master. In traditional Japanese fashion it asks a lot of questions, has intrigue, and rather good action sequences through out.

TL;DR?

21 years ago we were given a storytelling treat which asks the questions in a very plain way that for the most part if you listen versus hear creates a very powerful message; all  of this captured in state of the art animation from the lovely country of Japan.

Does it have pacing issues? Yes. Is some of the wording odd? Absolutely. Does it detract from the overall product? Not in the least.

The original Ghost in the Shell is not for everyone; most certainly not everyone in the West. It still however is an iconic moment of filmmaking that is easily equivalent to a Citizen Kane within it’s genre.

Should you watch it?

If you are a fan of anime and haven’t? Yes. If you are interested in the origins of the new movie? Yes. If you want to see something better than the new movie – Yes.

If none of these interest you – it’s ok. It’s like any fine art. Some people enjoy it. Some people don’t. It says nothing good or bad about either side. Just tastes – which are, should, and can be different.

How rewatchable is it?

Once a year – maybe. Once every 2 about right.

The Ghost in the Shell ARISE series or Stand Alone Complex are easier to watch repeatedly as their pacing is a touch faster and the stories more streamlined.

Ok so whats the big spoiler that has you outraged?

 

Roll over to read begins now.

Screw this movie in the face with a rusty chainsaw dipped in blow fish poison wielded by someone who has a personal hatred for that face.

As you know when the first casting came out I was against it due to Scarlett Johansson, who is a good actress, being given the role over someone like say Rinko Kikuchi, or any other of the dozens of Asian actresses who should have gotten the part. I have talked about White Washing before on several reviews. I am going to link to the bowl of raisins story again because it still explains it better. 

Mostly white people go “I don’t see the problem”.  It has nothing to do with her acting. I am sure her acting is fine. The problem is the part could and should have gone to any number of Asian actresses. 

You are going to see counter videos of people going to Japan and speaking with Japanese people what they think. They in the clips shown – don’t seem to have a problem. They of course are not looking for representation of themselves in Western media. They aren’t looking for heroes, icon’s, actors, actresses, stars, and the people we look up to here to go “I can be that”. Representation matters. 

Fine. Ignore both sides of the theoretical argument of who could have and should have been cast. The weak excuses about why it was done.

The spoiler. They literally white washed the character.

Literally.

The character in the movie was a Japanese girl named Motoko, who was kidnapped and had her brain implanted into a Caucasian cybernetic body and had her identity stripped from her. 

What the actual…

How..can anyone justify this? Please tell me. 

They literally took an Asian and “improved her” and made her white in the process. 

It doesn’t matter that most reviewers I have watched said its great visually, but ok otherwise. Just ok. 

They literally and figuratively white washed her and have spent the past year defending it. 

This movie needs to be burnt to the ground. This is a problem and folks – you need to help stop it. Please stop supporting movies like this.

Roll over ends.

 

Advertisements

Darke Reviews | Power Rangers (2017)

I really don’t know why I wanted to see this movie. I was not a fan of the show when it premiered the first time back in the early 90’s. I was a bit disappointed considering I had grown up on Voltron and thought I was getting a live action version. I was young. I didn’t know better.  So despite that the trailers did their job and I wanted to go see it. With that in mind I figure if I enjoyed the movie then it is a solid movie without nostalgia glasses getting in my way to either love it or hate it for its differences between then and now.

So should you go go to the theatre to see it?

I invoke the three writer rule as the movie goes to five. We have story by Kieran and Michelle Mulroney (Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows), Burk Sharpless (Dracula Untold,  Last Witch Hunter, Gods of Egypt) and Matt Sazama (Dracula Untold,  Last Witch Hunter, Gods of Egypt) and the final screenplay by John Gatins (Flight, Kong: Skull Island). At this point unless I am given photographic evidence to the contrary I am going to say Burk Sharpless and Matt Sazama are a modern version of Alan Smithee. The real surprise here despite the rule being invoked – they told a decent story. Sure it’s origin story 101 but unlike so many other movies with a wide cast to introduce they actually let you get to know the characters. The dialogue, the character decisions, all felt natural. There’s one particular scene around a campfire that was in the paint by numbers guide, but it worked. No this isn’t going to win any awards for storytelling or doing something particularly new but it did its job. It does have a few plot holes you can pilot a zord through but you forgive them because the characterizations of your five mains are as strong as they are.

This is director Dean Israelite second feature film since Project Almanac; and while he shows more restraint than he did there he still has not quite mastered the camera. I will give absolute credit for trying a few things with the camera that worked, but then he went too long on them and it stopped working. I get the sense that there’s more to him, as overall the movie was surprisingly enjoyable. Directorially speaking the beats work mostly, the camera work is solid for a majority of the film and the performances and blocking are good. His sense of pacing was on point, but his tonal choices were a tilt a whirl of emotion. I remember looking to my sister during the movie going “well that was bleak” during one scene; yet they earned the beats they got and the emotions they drew out of me.

What takes the movie to the next level is the actors who had remarkable chemistry with each other. Dacre Montgomery as our Red Ranger Jason isn’t just a bland white guy lead. He tries to be more and largely succeeds; and I will be curious to see him in Stranger Things Season 2. British actress (of Indian origin) Naomi Scott (Lemonade Mouth) is our Pink Ranger Kimberly and much like Dacre really makes more of the character than I thought possible. RJ Cyler ( Me Earl and the Dying Girl) is our Blue Ranger Billy, who I am going to talk more about in a moment. Ludi Lin is Zack, the Black Ranger; which leaves us with singer songwriter Becky G  as Trini our Yellow Ranger.

Bryan Cranston returns to Power Rangers, this time as Zordon and I must say he makes an excellent face on the wall. Elizabeth Banks steals the show as a semi serious and surprisingly menacing Rita Repulsa. That isn’t to say there aren not fantastical elements to her performance deserving of a laugh but much like the heroes, her moments are earned well enough you enjoy seeing her.

Why did I not talk about the five mains more? Because they need to be talked about together. If you read my reviews with any regularity I speak of representation and how it matters. This movie has given us Asian, Indian, Hispanic, and Black actors in what is easily claimed as a superhero role. Ok so the movie hits you over the head with it with a line, but I forgive it for them actually bothering to do it in the first place. On top of that we have a character who identifies on the autism spectrum – and actually calls it out in film. This movie made a real effort to have multiple types of representation across the board and succeeded where other films fail. What makes it even better so it feels less forced than it is – the actors have amazing chemistry with each other. When two of the characters meet for the first time I was taken aback by how well they sync’d and felt right on camera together. This kind of interaction continue to go on as the movie moved forward; furthering my surprise.

So we have good representation and good actors who connected with a decent script and pretty solid direction – this lets me overlook the movies flaws.

Oh yes. There are flaws.

As I said, the camera work is improved over Project Alamanac, but definitely still needs work. I would shake the director of photography to make him use a steady cam, but I don’t think he’d notice the motion as there are more than a few shots that had noticeable wobble that didn’t need it. The fight sequences when the camera is still? Great. When it’s moving. Kinda a mess. The same can be said for the Zords. I know there’s a T Rex and a Pteranodon, but due to camera movement and poor design of the robots the others are kind of a mess. There are a few plot holes that are glaring and can leave you with a lot of questions if you think about them too long and some effects work – others not so much.

TL;DR

Power Rangers is a surprisingly good movie. There are a ton of callbacks to the series that even I picked up on. It, in my opinion, has a lot of heart to it and I feel there was some passion by the cast and crew in getting this made. It while following the formula of origin stories and generic teen filler movies somehow stands apart from them. The production crew was serious about making this as good a movie as you can while still embracing what makes it Power Rangers.  If anything, they did lose *some* of the hokeyness that was part of the charm, but the cast’s charm overpowers that flaw.

Should you see it?

It is different than the show as I know of it, but if you are even remotely interested yeah its a very entertaining ride.

Would you watch it again?

Probably.

Really? You going to buy it too?

Yes. No doubt.

Any warnings?

So Power Rangers the show is very kid friendly no matter the age. 5 and under I’d keep out, maybe 7 and under on this one. This is a solid PG film that wanted to dip its toes into PG-13 (well modern PG-13).

I like the movie and don’t have issue recommending it at all.

Surprise!

Oh and there’s some product placement in the movie used as a punchline – and I didn’t mind it. It worked and I liked it.

So where’s Beauty and the Beast?

I was on vacation. Haven’t seen it yet. Might this weekend. If so you’ll get a review.

Darke Reviews | Life (2017)

If you are not new to my site you know that I love good sci fi. If you are new to my site, you now know I love good Sci-Fi. If you want to make it horror sci-fi then you better hold to your science while telling me your fiction. I think this belief of mine comes from most horror sci-fi being relatively close in period to our own and with our own rules of science, biology, chemistry, and physics. If you want to violate these rules you need to establish you are acting outside of them early on or you risk losing me to wondering how within the confines of known science you are operating.

It’s why I buy phasers, lightsabers, xenomorphs, and flux capacitors. You laid forth rules. You have not violated them within your own fiction. We’re good. Tell me your rules, your world and I will board the suspension of disbelief train and ride it to the end. If you present me my world, my rules (as I understand them) you have established the protocols by which your science will be held standard. Violate them at your own risk or at least the risk of me ripping your movie apart.

So does Life need to find a way or is it worth exploring?

Written by Paul Wernick and Rhett Reese, LIFE is the story of scientists aboard the I.S.S. in a “near future” time that is otherwise undisclosed. During a mission in which samples are being brought back from Mars for study, they find proof of life. Maybe they wish they hadn’t.

Rheese and Wernick who worked on Zombieland and Deadpool together  would seem an odd choice for this movie as their comedy/action and comedy/horror don’t lend themselves to a tension based sci-fi thriller when you first think of them. Yet – somehow they did it. In the vein of Alien nearly 40 years ago they  did a well paced, no forced humor thriller.  The science is good, the fiction is good,  the thrills are solid enough; but within that something is missing. The characters themselves. You don’t get to know them as much so when the movie begins traditional Ten Little Indian’s as it needs to, you don’t feel it as deeply as you could.

Swedish director, Daniel Espinosa (Safehouse), shoots the movie rather well and he apparently knows how to deal with the limited space provided and uses that to add to the innate claustrophobia of having no where to run. Though, much like I feel about the script I don’t think he teases enough out of his actors to elevate the characters and really get their motivations – beyond the one who gets a bit of a monologue. It’s clear though he had a vision along with the writers and I feel that they executed the vision well enough but didn’t quite elevate it. More on that in the TL;DR.

From an acting perspective everyone is absolutely passable. Ryan Reynolds was well Ryan Reynolds in space, but he dialed himself back from an 11 to a 5 and the restraint was to his benefit. Hiroyuki Sanada (The Last Samurai, The Wolverine, 47 Ronin) may not be able to turn out a bad performance if he tried. Russian actress Olga Dihovichnaya makes a good mission commander despite this being her first American produced film. Ariyon Bakare, mostly a TV character actor, satisfies as our biologist. Rebecca Ferguson (Ilsa Faust from Mission Impossible Rogue Nation) plays my favorite character, the CDC specialist; leaving us with Jake Gyllenhaal who is the only one who just has a weird read. Each of the others despite having limited dimension still come off as normal people, Jake’s character just comes off …odd. I don’t know if it is a specific affectation he was directed to do or choose to do but he just was…odd to me.

From an FX standpoint they are 90% solid. The creature is interesting in its design and it’s movements. The overall space scenes and movement through the zero-g environment is beginning to be mastered after films such as Gravity nailed it as well as they did. The best effect though is a subtle one involving one of the characters. While it was an attempt to give one of them more depth (it kinda failed) it did succeed in making you believe the visual trickery before your eyes without looking overt. I would guess it was a mixture of practical and CG and that is often a winning combination.

TL;DR?

Life is good. The movie that is. Maybe the cereal too. I think what frustrates me about it is it could have been more and I think it wanted to be. I just don’t think the director or the script knew how to take it up just one more notch from something good to something great. There’s half-hearted attempts to ask the deeper questions that could come from this, but it’s just that half-hearted. Effort was definitely put into the production; but the net result was a “Good”. I honestly believe this movie could have been great, but it just didn’t know how to get there.

One other thing in it’s favor – the trailer did it’s job and was cut very specifically and rather well.

Should you see it?

It’s not bad sci-fi. So if you enjoy a lil in the Sci-Fi Horror genre give it a go. I’ll be curious to what you think.

Would you see it again?

Matinee maybe? If someone else paid.

How about buying it?

…the magic 8 ball says undecided.

Last thoughts?

Life is a good movie in its genre, well above average but not quite making a mark. Effort was there and it shows and that alone gets merit. I don’t hate it, I don’t love it and if nothing else someone tried and succeeded at a good sci fi horror. There is a lot worse coming this year (*stares at Geostorm*) and I do believe it deserves to make a profit just so we keep getting good pictures in this genre. It just could have been better.

Darke Reviews | Kong: Skull Island (2017)

I had two movie experiences tonight. Sword Art Online: Ordinal Scale and Kong: Skull Island. These experiences were diametrically opposed with SAO being with friends and an audience who was clapping, laughing, crying with the beats of the movie. I haven’t seen an audience as passionate about a film and reacting so strongly in many many years. I was among those feeling with the movie and cried quietly after my friends had to head home.

It’s been a long time since I remember seeing a movie that made me feel like that and with friends and fans who were as engaged. I miss it and I cherish tonight’s experience.

Then there is Skull Island. There were maybe 15 people in the theatre, but two men behind me who may or may not have snuck in, were quite obnoxious and very very drunk. Kept calling me bro. As I was not in the mood to be assaulted tonight I said nothing. Do I think it may cloud my review of the movie? Perhaps.

The real question is should Kong have stayed on the island?

First, let me make one thing very clear, this *is* in fact tied to the same universe as 2014 Godzilla movie. The studio in it’s…vain… attempt to mirror the success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is trying to create one with it’s own properties (or Toho’s I guess?). This isn’t a spoiler as it actually has no bearing on the film, but the company Monarch from the first one is present here and it is no accident. There will be a roll over spoiler at the bottom though for those who want it.

The story credit goes to John Gatins (Flight, Real Steel, Need for Speed and Power Rangers later this month). Suffice to say his style of story is all over the place in his work history as much as it is in the movie. Though his story was adapted to screenplay by Derek Connolly (Safety Not Guaranteed, Jurassic World), Max Borenstein (Godzilla 2014), and Dan Gilroy (Nightcrawler, Real Steel, Bourne Legacy). The people behind the pen and on the paper of this movie have left me a mixed bag of emotions as to how I feel about the work they produce individually and collectively – much like the movie. I feel that the people of the pen paid attention to the feedback from Godzilla being too slow, focusing too much on boring non dimensional characters, killing off your most interesting actor. I also believe that they overcompensated the other direction; but still never quite nailed the characters.

Just as I feared from the trailers the movie isn’t quite sure of the tone. It very obviously moved away from the sedate, dry, and washed out tones of Godzilla; but in it’s quest to be different didn’t stake a claim as to what it wanted to be. It knew it just HAD to be different than it’s predecessor so it tried everything! A bit of horror, bit of adventure, bit of action, bit of war, bit of comedy, and bit of Oh god look at the size of that thing – and little of it worked. I may have to send their agent a small booklet on the word subtlety and how to write  a script with it. None of the characters are particularly compelling and you spend the time wondering when most of them will be picked off by the denizens of the island. The amount of stupidity shown as nearly as big as Kong himself; while the broad strokes used to paint the near caricatures of human beings is wide enough to paint the deck of an aircraft carrier. You just won’t care, and the only reason you might is the raw charm of a handful of the actors.

Oh the actors. Hiddleston is doing his best to be the adventure movie lead despite the flaws in the script, directing, and just the movie itself. He tries and I care simply because he is Tom Hiddleston. Samuel L Jackson phones in a performance of Colonel Kurtz, I mean Preston Packard. Brie Larson does little, but tried to do more than look pretty. Not her fault either. More on that in a bit. John C Reilly is absolutely fine. He was not in full comedy mode, in fact he’s a touch tragic but due to the script and directing you don’t get that 100%.  There isn’t much else to mention here; which means I can begin the ritual execution.

What. Was. Jordan Vogt-Roberts. Thinking? Also what was the studio thinking? They want this to be a tentpole level feature that can help continue to drive interest in their plan for a Giant Monster Cinematic Universe, so lets hire the guy who did a few episodes of Funny or Die and some other comedy work. The direction in this movie is nearly as bad as the editing. I can think of nothing good to say here. The contrivances were god awful while the shot choices laughable in their forced attempt to be ‘epic’.  The pacing is all over the place, the characters have hints of being more and are flatter than the ground under a giant gorilla’s foot.

What does work are the visuals. Kong is amazing. The creatures are…ok, but Kong is amazing. There are fights with him, more than Godzilla offered and far more clear than the previous film. That is one of the movies few credits in which the fighting of Kong vs Monsters is very clear and easy to understand. I think they used music when they couldn’t figure out how to test the speakers or the dialogue may have been even worse.

TL;DR?

It’s not good. I am away from the experience and the movie just isn’t good. The visuals are good and they waste no time on the reveal of the big guy. So thats the positive column. It does try, and mostly succeed at giving us a King Kong story we haven’t seen before, but that isn’t much praise. The money shots of him standing and his size are there and worth it, but they do not carry a film.

Thats all I can say – I really believe it’s bad.

Should you see it?

If you are a Kong fan? Sure. Otherwise see Logan again or save the money.

What if I really must see it? I mean Hiddleston.

If you must, the 3D does add something. Mostly digital embers, but the depth of field is nice and the XD speakers were amazing in more than a few shots.

Are you sure the jerks that were behind you didn’t sway your opinion?

Yeah pretty sure. Its why i still write these vs impromptu videos.  It gives me time away to think. Honestly, the review is kinder than I thought it would be.

But Jess – it’s a giant monkey fighting weird reptiles movie. Isn’t it just good for popcorn?

Honestly. No, not really. Sure the big guy should be the focus, but the movie is just badly done.

Anything else?

Next week is Beauty and the Beast and The Belko Experiment, but I will be traveling for work so may not get to see B&B before Friday.

 

 

Rollover begins

Ok if you do see it stay for the end credits. I noticed it said “Rodan”, “Mothra”, “King Ghidorah”  are trademarks of Toho. Then we get an end credit scene where they absolutely set up King of the Monsters.

 

Rollover Ends

Darke Reviews | Logan ( 2017)

In yet another movie this year, I get to go “17 Years ago…” we were introduced to this world and this character. Things really haven’t changed much in a lot of respects. When Jackman was cast no one wanted him in the fan community. He’s too tall. He’s not stocky enough. Cast Glen Danzig, were just some of the many things being said. Granted the only casting at the time that anyone really felt was right was Patrick Stewart as Professor X, at a spry 60 taking the role of the iconic character. Granted since 1987 when Star Trek: The Next Generation aired, he instantly made the top of everyone’s who to cast list. Now, we are hard pressed to think of anyone but these two in these roles. I mean look at this opening.

 

Sure there have been calls for Jackman to retire after the past three movies. People have been getting tired of Wolverine and the X-men which the movies had become for a bit. The first spin off movie X:Men Origins Wolverine was absolute garbage which didn’t help.  Too few people saw the redeeming The Wolverine in 2013, or its even better directors cut on DVD. Then there were rumors of “Old Man Logan” being adapted, but nary a still or production debacle to make the waves. Then the trailer was released and we realized we may have something good.

A tired Logan, an aging Charles and a world that wasn’t quite as familiar. Oh and one of my favourite characters – X-23, which came as a complete and happy surprise to most people. When that trailer dropped people lost their minds “is that X-23?” then they confirmed it…and the hype train grew to the tones of Johnny Cash.

So should you board the hype train?

Let us discuss the writing. 3 Writer rule – revoked for this one. Scott Frank (The Wolverine, The Lookout, Get Shorty) gets a screenplay credit with Michael Green a TV (The River, American Gods, Kings) producer who has his own share of screenplay listings (Green Lantern, Alien: Covenant, Blade Runner 2049). Additionally director James Mangold (The Wolverine, 3:10 to Yuma, Walk the Line) has both story and screenplay ties. So Mangold comes up with the story he wants to tell and then the others are brought in for polish and adjustment. Based on what I saw, probably by Mangold himself as there doesn’t seem to be significant tonal or story shifts as the movie progresses. Significant ones. There are a few beats, a few story elements which seem to clash with the overall film and some near unnecessary third act exposition but it doesn’t detract from the overall story being told.

It is a good story. One we haven’t seen a hero movie do before, or at least not in awhile. I was literally commenting to my sister the other day – “When is Hollywood going to remember bigger isn’t better with the bad guys? That not every plot has to be an end of the world. Sometimes smaller is better.” You see if the stakes get too high and you stop caring. You know they won’t destroy the world. You can’t have a sequel that way. Mangold apparently knew this and rather than a bombastic end of world apocalypse, he tells a smaller story. A story about people, about life, death, and hope – just with the lens and world view of a tired, bitter old mutant who has seen and done too much.

The story is good and so is the direction. I found no camera angle wasted. No colour palette bled. Every beat existed for a reason that I could tell. Some last a few too long, true. Some will complain about the pacing not being as quick as others. That’s the point. The director wants you to spend time with the characters, remember them, and feel them again as you did back in 2000. He wants you to learn about Laura in her own way through careful interaction that is well crafted and bothers to show who and what she is without exposition.

The acting is spot on from our two stars we know. Jackman didn’t phone this in and Stewart looked like he was having the time of his life, despite what I would guess for both of them involved at least 3 hours in the make up chair each day. Jackman lets his characters age show in every moment. Stewart steals the show as a 90 year old Xavier in every bloody scene he is in, but there’s quiet competition from Dafne Keen (The Refugees) as Laura aka X-23. The 12 year old (11 at filming) Spanish actress is once again why I will say child actors can be just fine – bad direction and bad scripts are the problems (sometimes). She gets added to the list of young actresses who really make a mark in a good film. I don’t know if she did her own stunts, but if she did I am even more impressed.

I’d like to say the villains of the piece leave as much a mark but in what is quickly becoming tradition – they don’t. I think that is ok in this case as they are but a catalyst for the story not the be all and end all of the story. Richard Grant’s (Bram Stokers Dracula, Dig) Dr. Rice is passable just as Boyd Holbrook’s (Narco’s, Gone Girl) Pierce. Pierce is a nice change of pace for a villain though as he does show intelligence, cunning, and actually using his brain. I liked him, but will quickly forget him. That’s ok. Again, as it’s worth repeating the story here is only driven forward by the villains but the focus is where it should be – Logan, Laura, Charles.

On to the technicals? Have you heard the phrase “a hard R” before? Ok short version it means that they are going for an R Rating that really can’t be disputed. I think they went for a soft NC-17 just to get the R rating.  Every F— they couldn’t use in all the other movies were saved up here. Oh and a vicious and violent Wolverine movie that was being asked for. Your wish is bloody granted! Heavy emphasis on bloody. Not gory though, just brutal and ferocious as the character deserves – both of them. Yes, if you’ve seen the trailers Laura is just as violent and you will love the movie more for it. The make up effects are good and a lot of practical to cherish.

TL;DR

 

The movie deserves the praise it is getting from audiences and critics alike. It is absolutely savage in its many, many take downs. The action is clean (ish). The story good. The movie lets you breath. It’s shot really well. The movie proves Fox is getting it as with half the budget of Civil War, Batman v Superman, Amazing Spider Man, Man of Steel, Ultron, Dark Knight Rises – they made a far better movie. It isn’t some over the top send off for beloved characters, but instead a tighter picture with a lot of restraint.

It should remind you of a good western; the movie hits you over the head with it a few times in case it doesn’t. It also goes on to prove GRITTY and REALISTIC doesn’t mean grey, bland, dirty. You can have colour AND grit. Pay attention to that lesson and that lesson alone.

While I haven’t yet watched Movie Bob’s review, I agree with his title: Don’t try to make this again. It worked for a variety of factors, not the least of which was 17 years of investment. If you feel the need to emulate it learn how to focus on the characters – not bigger/badder – XTREME (missing “e” intended).

Logan is the movie that Wolverine deserved. Logan is the movie we’ve been wanting

Should you see it?

Yes. Please. Let this make all the money this month. Let this make all the money this part of the year. Let them know they were right to make it this way.

Are you buyi-

Yes. Next question.

Will you see it again?

If I can talk folks into seeing it with me? Yes.

Can I take the kids?

Depends – did you think Deadpool was watchable for them? Thats the benchmark. It is good ol fashioned violence, blood, and foul language. Even Robocop would be impressed.

FYI – this would have been PG-13 in the 80’s….maybe an R. Maybe.

Last thoughts?

Guys, I gotta tell you this movie is the best one I have seen this year. I will be surprised if it doesn’t stay in my top 5 through the year. It made me feel something more than once and for a superhero movie – that is saying something.