I don’t disagree with him on that. There’s some great moments, and it’s better than a lot of the other X-Men movies, but it’s not an all-time classic or anything.
I agree with that, it’s a familiar story retold for the first time with a superhero character and told well (I like it), but the plot and development of the story is very familiar.
He finds that worth bringing up in his interview though. He sees the praise it got as a symptom of something bad. The perception of quality being “wrong”.
It’s a very good interview, with a rare sense of perspective and proportion, and the fact that everyone has got hung up on the quote about Logan and largely ignored everything else he talks about in the interview makes his point perfectly.
We can talk about the unlikelihood of another ‘Before…’ film if you like?
In the context of the interview the meaning of his comments on Logan are pretty clear. It’s not so much that he’s arguing it’s a bad film or undeserving of any kind of praise at all, and he’s not even really being snippy about superhero films - he’s just talking about how big movies like that get a disproportionate amount of attention, by design, and are increasingly squeezing out smaller alternatives that are in turn having to work a lot harder just to get noticed these days.
Which feels like a fair point to make for someone in his position, although it’s not as sensational and immediately-digestible a headline as “Ethan Hawke says bad things about that movie you like”.
He did? Fuck that guy!
He definitely did say that in part, but it’s not all he’s saying. It’s not just attention, it’s the kind of attention; the perception of quality that he feels isn’t justified.
Now we have the problem that they tell us Logan is a great movie. Well, it’s a great superhero movie. It still involves people in tights with metal coming out of their hands. It’s not Bresson. It’s not Bergman. But they talk about it like it is. I went to see Logan cause everyone was like, “This is a great movie” and I was like, “Really? No, this is a fine superhero movie.” There’s a difference but big business doesn’t think there’s a difference. Big business wants you to think that this is a great film because they wanna make money off of it.
He’s saying that the influence of big business is warping the perception of what is good, or indeed, great.
Yes, I agree, I think that’s what he’s saying.
And to be clear, my earlier post wasn’t being sarky about your take on his comments Steve, but those third-party websites that reduced his interesting interview down to a disingenuous out-of-context bit of clickbait.
And missed the more interesting argument he was making.
Which most film reviewers hate, click here to really annoy them.
Oh wait, they’re annoyed most of the time as far as I can see.
It would have been better for me if Logan wasn’t trying to ditch Laura at every turn and only protected her out of loyalty to Charles. Their emotional connection at the end felt flat.
For me, Logan was a good film but not a great film.
I think the importance of it and the Deadpool films is that they show you can take comic book superhero characters and make successful adult-oriented, R-rated movies. They don’t have to always be geared for children.
Londoners! You can go see my cousin Donal’s excellent documentary The Image You Missed on Saturday the 8th of September, alongside the Patriot Game, his father’s seminal film on Northern Ireland!
I think just the same for WW. It’s fine superhero, that got praise just for having a female in title character - for the first time in superhero movies history (apart from Supergirl though), but it doesn’t raise or sets any new standards.
And Catwoman and Elektra.
It got praise for being better than anything Warner Bros had done recently with their superheroes.
Can I rephrase it as - the first female superhero movie with some quality in it?
Well there you go. That might explain why it was praised, rather than because it was a woman in the title role (which clearly didn’t work for Catwoman and Elektra).