Spoilers below

Movie Queen41, I looked at most of the article, and feel it's pretty good. I didn't agree with everything, but much of it was on point. The part of the film toward the end with the kids and their powers, for example, made me cringe in regard to what had already happened. So that point is a strong one. However, I personally didn't mind that Logan is so unlike the other Wolverine films -- I felt like I wanted a change from what had gone before. And the presence of Professor X in the film helps to give Logan an X-Men identity, if you consider it, so I don't feel like the film fails as an X-Men film necessarily.

Also, the killing of Prof. X was rather beautifully understated, in my opinion, so that didn't bug me too much. However, I agree with the writer that X's funeral should've been given more solemnity than it got. One almost feels that James Mangold is afraid of really heavy moments in his work. At any rate, I don't feel that Logan is the best comic book movie of the year -- just one more flawed entry, I guess. It probably should've gotten more rewrites.

I thought it was sad that Caliban got a better death than Professor X, because he went out heroically sacrificing himself.

Caliban is such a minor character in both Logan and Apocalypse, whereas Prof. X is the founder of the X-Men.

The movie is massively overrated.

And it's an irrelevant movie regarding the official timeline, since Logan is just a spin-off. It's not a sequel to Days of Future Past at all.

"The part of the film toward the end with the kids and their powers, for example, made me cringe in regard to what had already happened."

Totally agree. Massively overrated. Good, decent, but nowhere near the hype. A few minor changes to the script could have made it great, but the parts that weakened it were so weak they destroyed many of the good parts and made it lean to more mediocre. I gave it a generous 6.

@Harry Skywalker said:

The movie is massively overrated.

And it's an irrelevant movie regarding the official timeline, since Logan is just a spin-off. It's not a sequel to Days of Future Past at all.

I agree. It doesn't work with DOFP at all. Logan saved the X-Men and mutantkind in DOFP. In Logan, they are all doomed.

I think the reason why people tend to overrate it is because it's R rated and it's "different." That is why the critics love it. If it was PG-13, I bet it wouldn't be getting all the rave reviews. The only thing that stood out to me is the Logan-Charles interaction. I didn't care about anyone else in the movie except for the two of them.

Their deaths seemed so pointless and avoidable.

@Movie Queen41 said:

@Harry Skywalker said:

The movie is massively overrated.

And it's an irrelevant movie regarding the official timeline, since Logan is just a spin-off. It's not a sequel to Days of Future Past at all.

I agree. It doesn't work with DOFP at all. Logan saved the X-Men and mutantkind in DOFP. In Logan, they are all doomed.

I think the reason why people tend to overrate it is because it's R rated and it's "different." That is why the critics love it. If it was PG-13, I bet it wouldn't be getting all the rave reviews. The only thing that stood out to me is the Logan-Charles interaction. I didn't care about anyone else in the movie except for the two of them.

Their deaths seemed so pointless and avoidable.

I don't know about their deaths seeming "avoidable." After all, in the film, Logan and Charles are two vulnerable old men, for lack of a better term, and the Wolverine clone was so much rougher and tougher than they were.

X-whatever tossed Logan around like he was a rag doll.

I think they were avoidable. How about it was stupid for Charles to suggest they hang out with the farm family while on the run from the Reavers, who caught up with them at the hotel. At the very least, Logan could have put his foot down and told Charles, "No, we have to go NOW!" That simple act would have saved both Charles and the farm family's lives.

Also, the child mutants, instead of all of them ganging up on Donald Pierce to kill him, could have used their powers to help defeat X-24 and save Logan.

@Movie Queen41 said:

@Harry Skywalker said:

The movie is massively overrated.

And it's an irrelevant movie regarding the official timeline, since Logan is just a spin-off. It's not a sequel to Days of Future Past at all.

I agree. It doesn't work with DOFP at all. Logan saved the X-Men and mutantkind in DOFP. In Logan, they are all doomed.

I think the reason why people tend to overrate it is because it's R rated and it's "different." That is why the critics love it. If it was PG-13, I bet it wouldn't be getting all the rave reviews. The only thing that stood out to me is the Logan-Charles interaction. I didn't care about anyone else in the movie except for the two of them.

Their deaths seemed so pointless and avoidable.

I rated it 7/10 but I think I'll downvote it. The characters interactions were good for a drama, the problem is the rest...

Everything's overrated by someone.

@Harry Skywalker said:

I rated it 7/10 but I think I'll downvote it.

I don't understand that rating - is it the same as 3 1/2 stars?

@The Midi-chlorian Count said:

@Harry Skywalker said:

I rated it 7/10 but I think I'll downvote it.

I don't understand that rating - is it the same as 3 1/2 stars?

That's the way I look at it. If you do the math, 7/10 divided in half would be 3 1/2 out of 5.

I'd give it 2 out of 5 stars. The 2 stars for Jackman and Stewart.

@Movie Queen41 said:

I'd give it 2 out of 5 stars. The 2 stars for Jackman and Stewart.

They're both good in it, but the film's script is lacking. For all the rah-rahs Logan got, I can't help but feel like maybe its maker(s) and other CBM filmmakers take the easy way out, because they're adapting comicbooks. I mean, putting dialogue from the film Shane into Logan was really smart. But as MovieQueen's article pointed out, the filmmakers maybe felt like just using Shane might imbue Logan with some of the referenced film's greatness. That's an easy way out.

@The Midi-chlorian Count said:

@Harry Skywalker said:

I rated it 7/10 but I think I'll downvote it.

I don't understand that rating - is it the same as 3 1/2 stars?

Good bait my friend.

But you shouldn't even bother understanding it because nobody likes the 1 to 5 stars rating.

LMAO!

@Harry Skywalker said:

Good bait my friend.

But you shouldn't even bother understanding it because nobody likes the 1 to 5 stars rating.

LMAO!

👍 Actually, to go back on topic, I gave it 2 1/2 stars (5/10). It's a good enough comic book adaptation, and slightly better I guess than the production line stuff, but not massively so...