mjpetty7

LOGAN is one of those films that, when it ends, you immediately want to watch it again.

As far as X-Men films go, LOGAN is the most brutal, violent, and bloody (I do not count DEADPOOL as an X-Men film simply because it isn't at all essential to the X- Men/Wolverine films & it really is it's own thing), in a lot of ways it's the Wolverine film that people have always wanted. X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE was a let down to many (it's a good action flick but that's about it), while THE WOLVERINE was received much better (with the exception of the film's final act). LOGAN is truly the Wolverine film that everyone has been looking for and, in many respects, the Wolverine that Logan himself looks for throughout the film.

Directed by James Mangold (3:10 TO YUMA, WALK THE LINE, THE WOLVERINE), LOGAN itself is a Western; technically a Modern Western, but a Western nevertheless. It's not just the western settings (Mexico, North Dakota, Nevada, etc.) that set LOGAN apart as a Western, but also the content of its characters. Logan was a hero, much like the Civil War heroes who come back home to find that they don't belong (I'm looking at you Uncle Ethan...), Logan was formerly one of the X-Men, superheroes that the world counted on and looked up to (depending on the X-Men film that is), as Wolverine. He's a classic example of "don't meet your heroes" as he's merely a shell of the man he once was. Sure, this isn't only a characteristic of the Western, but it is one of the common traits of Classic Westerns. The hero who has no place in society, yet fights, and even gives his life, to defend it. This is Logan.

And let's not forget that the basic plot of the film is the group traveling from Mexico to, eventually, Canada to run from a group of Reavers after a young girl and her friends. Sounds very Western to me...

Along with all that, the use of the film SHANE, a Classic Western from 1953, not only serves as a bridge for us to take a closer look into Charles Xavier, and the title character himself, but it also gives a clear picture as to what LOGAN is supposed to be. LOGAN shows Logan, Laura, and Xavier what it's like to have a family, much like SHANE does with it's title character. LOGAN creates a bond between the Western hero and the child he's sworn to protect, another clear characteristic of SHANE. And of course that ending scene, which I won't spoil one way or another.

All this being said, LOGAN is not only very clearly a Modern Western, but also just a phenomenal display of the character of Wolverine in a way that none of the other X-films have been able to fully grasp (although some have come awfully close). When watching LOGAN, I immediately compared it to two of my all-time favorite films that often fight for their place as my fourth favorite on in my Top 10: THE DARK KNIGHT and TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY. It's not really the content of these films compared to LOGAN that stuck out to me, but instead the implications that come along with them. LOGAN is Marvel's THE DARK KNIGHT, it's the one big and important film that separates it from anything else the company has done before or will ever do again. LOGAN will become a standard for all X-Men, Wolverine, Marvel, superhero, and comic book movies out there, much like THE DARK KNIGHT is for DC, Batman, and the superhero/comic book genre now. Similarly, TERMINATOR 2 changed action and sci-fi films forever. In fact, outside of MAD MAX: FURY ROAD, I can't name a single action film that has had the impact on the genre and film industry as a whole in the same way TERMINATOR 2 has, until now.

If LOGAN is Marvel's THE DARK KNIGHT, then it is also certainly the comic book genres TERMINATOR 2. Like the title of this review says, LOGAN is a masterpiece.

So here's the thing, I'm a film major, I'm trained to look at film a certain way. I look at each shot composition, each character action, line of dialogue, and each acting performance. On the other hand, I'm also someone who believes most if not all that this film is showing us. So I really wanted this film to be good and really wanted it to work, and overall, it did it's best.

In terms of story, I think AmeriGeddon is actually a pretty solid film. In a similar fashion to both the original and latest Red Dawn films, AmeriGeddon follows the fall of America as a nation due to a strategic attack on America and following this attack foreign troops arrive to "keep the peace". Due to my love for Red Dawn, I honestly had a lot of hope in this movie. However, both versions of Red Dawn I thought were executed better. Nevertheless, AmeriGeddon's plot is actually pretty good! Between the conflicted soldier, the troubled teen, their love story, the politician seeing what's going on around him, and everyone else, I thought, at least on paper, the film worked pretty well.

This brings me to my criticisms, and I by no means mean to be harsh because I understand the importance of films like AmeriGeddon being made and seen by American citizens, however I believe they could have done much better and I don't believe it's a budget issue. I believe there are two primary reasons AmeriGeddon was not as good as it could have or should have been: too much expositional dialogue and sub-par acting.

Let's talk dialogue first. One of the first things you learn in any basic scriptwriting course is to "show don't tell". AmeriGeddon's dialogue, though informative, is unfortunately way too on-the-nose and/or expositional. Between constantly using the words "New World Order" and character's spewing out statistics and phrases like something out of a Survivor's Manual, the screenwriter in me was cringing at times watching this film.

The other biggest issue with AmeriGeddon is the acting. Now, I don't want to give the impression that all the acting was bad, because it wasn't, but unfortunately there were certain character's whose acting fell flat, and sadly I believe this is a direct correlation between the dialogue and the performances.

All-in-all, I am definitely happy to see this film made and that people are actually excited about a film like AmeriGeddon. Do I wish the quality of the film were better? Absolutely, this film should've been as good and intense as the 2012 Red Dawn remake as I referenced earlier, but nevertheless AmeriGeddon is a must see for those who are interested in where America is headed, and if you're a cinephile like myself then I would maybe suggest a different popcorn flick to watch on a Saturday night.

The Bourne Trilogy is one of my all-time favorite film series. Between the action, romance, government corruption, Matt Damon, and the concept of "who is Jason Bourne?", it basically had everything an action movie junkie could ask for. Admittedly, I have not seen The Bourne Legacy as I thought the concept of the film, while interesting, was unappealing. Having a Bourne film without Bourne is like the next 007 not being James Bond, it just doesn't work in my opinion (though I have heard decent things about the film and may one day check it out).

Jason Bourne is a film that ties up portions of the original trilogy while leaving room for further installments, very similar to The Force Awakens did in regards to Return of the Jedi. While it is not my favorite Bourne film (I need to watch all three of the originals again before I can chose which is), it definitely got me excited for Bourne's story to continue. I know that the book series has many more installments than the films do, and based on that I would love to see more Bourne stories in the future, and I believe this film allows for that to take place.

Matt Damon, Tommy Lee Jones, Alicia Vikander, and the rest of the cast did a fantastic job and while I have read some reviews that paint Damon and Jones as not enjoying this film, I don't agree. These are characters who have been at each other's throats for years now, even though they haven't spoken in just as much time. Bourne is tired, worn down, and much like Ben Affleck's Batman in Batman V Superman, has seen and discovered so many things over the years to the point where he's not sure he wants to continue the fight. Spoiler alert, he does. While Dewey (Jones) on the other hand is at the end of his career, very similar to Vito Corleone in The Godfather, and he's trying to hold onto all the cards he has. Some say this is a wooden performance by Jones, I don't agree. I see Dewey as a man who, although old, tired, and almost out, is holding on to every bit of life that he can. I thought the cast did an excellent job.

I will say I was confused about what Bourne's ultimate goal was during portions of the film, though I was never lost whenever he was on the move. The reason I can't say Jason Bourne is my favorite Bourne film is because honestly I don't believe the story is as good as Identity, Supremacy, and Ultimatum's; though this is not to say that I didn't enjoy Jason Bourne because I absolutely did. There has always been a LOT of truth in the Bourne films, and this one is no exception.

The action sequences were fantastic, between the hand-to-hand combat fights, the gun shoot outs, the riot sequence with Nicki, and the end car chase, I was hooked from the start of the film to the end. I guess I'm just a sucker for action flicks, and Jason Bourne.