Logan Tops Charts Higher Than Expected

The X-Men spinoff Logan – starring Hugh Jackman as the metal-clawed, mutant anti-hero Wolverine – dominated the box office in its opening weekend with a huge $88.4 million, according to data released Monday, March 6.

Aimed at a more adult audience, it is the first R-rated outing in the X-Men franchise, which began in 2000 and has so far clocked up $4.4 billion in box office revenue.

More of a blood-spattered road movie than a traditional superhero film, it follows Wolverine/Logan as he undertakes one final mission: to protect a young girl who has powers remarkably like his own and is being pursued by dark forces. (READ: ‘Logan’ Review: Somber, sober and thoroughly fascinating)

Dropping to the runner-up spot in its second week was social horror-thriller Get Out, which has been the surprise hit of the year, taking $28.2 million, said box office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

Jordan Peele’s directorial debut – he is half of the comedy duo Key and Peele – follows an African American (Daniel Kaluuya) who goes with his white girlfriend (Allison Williams) to meet her family for the first time, but quickly realizes something sinister is afoot at their country estate.

The smart satire cost $4.5 million to produce and has already taken $78 million worldwide, with a tiny domestic drop of just 15% from its debut weekend, which is virtually unheard of in the horror genre.

Debuting in third place with $16.2 million was The Shack, based on a Christian-oriented novel by Canadian author William Young about a grieving man’s spiritual journey after his child dies.

Fourth place went to CGI comedy The Lego Batman Movie, with $11.7 million for a four-week total of $148.7 million.

Featuring the voice of Will Arnett as the caped crusader, the Warner Bros spinoff of the The Lego Movie follows Batman as he tries to save Gotham City from being taken over by the Joker, voiced by Zach Galifianakis.

Lionsgate’s John Wick: Chapter 2 came in fifth with $4.8 million in revenue for a four-week total of $82.9 million.

The thriller stars Keanu Reeves as a hit-man forced out of retirement in order to repay a debt to a fellow hired killer with whom he has signed a blood oath.

Published by

Scott Hart

member,author,editor

52 Comments

  1. Wired says Logan's success means R-rated superhero movies are here for good:

    https://www.wired.com/?p=2168841

    I think that's a shame. These movies should be more accessible, and having gratuitous violence doesn't add anything. Sure, I enjoyed the Sin City movies, and there is a place for them, but for movies where the source material is comics aimed at younger people? No. I hope Marvel doesn't go this route. Their Netflix shows – which are excellent – show that you can craft compelling, grown-up stories without gratuitous violence.

  2. Sam Favate

    Wired says Logan's success means R-rated superhero movies are here for good:

    https://www.wired.com/?p=2168841

    I think that's a shame. These movies should be more accessible, and having gratuitous violence doesn't add anything. Sure, I enjoyed the Sin City movies, and there is a place for them, but for movies where the source material is comics aimed at younger people?

    I don't think you'll see it outside of characters where profanity or violence are part and parcel of the character. Characters like Deadpool, the Punisher, Wolverine, Lobo, etc. or comics like The Boys, Preacher or The Walking Dead are very violent or profane so I think it's fair that their movie/TV counterparts are that way too. You're definitely not going to see a movie where Iron Man says the f-word or tears someone's head off since they're making too much money with PG-13 movies to do that. Nor should they since it's not how that character normally acts in comic book form.

  3. Sam Favate

    But there were calls to make Suicide Squad rated R, and Batman v Superman had an R-rated blu-ray release! Batman! Superman! in a R-rated movie! It's madness.

    I did forget about those movies (which either says something about my memory or it says something about them) but I'm hoping that DC/Warners is going to use them as a learning experiences and are planning on making movies that are more fun.

  4. TravisR

    I did forget about those movies (which either says something about my memory or it says something about them) but I'm hoping that DC/Warners is going to use them as a learning experiences and are planning on making movies that are more fun.

    Then again, everyone seemed to prefer the R-rated cut of Bat vs. Super (albeit not due to its R-ratedness).

  5. Sam Favate

    Wired says Logan's success means R-rated superhero movies are here for good:

    Hollywood never fails to learn the wrong lesson. Deadpool succeeded because it gave audiences something they'd never seen before. Logan did the same thing, while delivering an excellent film that holds up after the novelty wears off. Commoditizing their success into a R-rated paint-by-numbers template is a recipe to create movies that are just as tired and predictable as the PG-13 fare we get now.

    But it's a lot harder to create quality movies that give audiences new experiences than it is to churn out product that meets the same superficial parameters as past successes.

  6. Oh boy. The success of Logan clearly has Hollywood buzzing about R-rated superhero films. Just from today:

    DEADPOOL WILL BE PART OF FOX’S X-FORCE FILM

    “‘Deadpool 2’ is going into production this year. Then ‘X-Force,’ which is a combination of Deadpool, and Cable — they’re like the Black ops of the X-Men,” Kinberg told Deadline. “They’re much darker and have an R-rated decibel.”

    http://www.cbr.com/deadpool-x-force-film-ryan-reynolds/

    DC FILMS REPORTEDLY INTERESTED IN MAKING R-RATED SUPERHERO MOVIES

    Asked if DC Films was interested in making an R-rated film, an anonymous source said, “One hundred percent yes. With the right character(s).”

    http://www.cbr.com/dc-films-r-rated-superhero-movie-interest/

    WONDER WOMAN COULD RECEIVE AN R-RATED DIRECTOR’S CUT

    The reasons for the rating bump? Apparently the director’s cut, which bears the alternate title of the Wonder Woman Commemorative Edition, will include more violence than the original film, the theatrical release which has received its PG-13 rating for “violence throughout and some suggestive material.”

    http://www.cbr.com/wonder-woman-r-rated-directors-cut/

    All wrong, IMO. Very wrong.

  7. Sam Favate

    Wired says Logan's success means R-rated superhero movies are here for good:

    That's too bad because studios won't understand why the movie was a success, which in my opinion had little to do with the R rating.

  8. Sam Favate

    DC FILMS REPORTEDLY INTERESTED IN MAKING R-RATED SUPERHERO MOVIES

    Hopefully, DC is eyeing Lobo for an R rated movie rather than, say, Superman. Lobo is funny, crazy, violent and unknown to the general public so he could basically be DC's Deadpool. I'm sure there's other characters in the DCU that would work in an R rated environment but I hope they aren't looking at their flagship characters for that kind of treatment.

  9. Sam Favate

    Really? Can you tell us why? I'm genuinely puzzled by this trend.

    I'll say that imo r rated films are more realistic in terms of what would happen if these superhero worlds were real. Real bloodshed harsh Language and extreme violence would be the norm.

  10. Tino

    I'll say that imo r rated films are more realistic in terms of what would happen if these superhero worlds were real. Real bloodshed harsh Language and extreme violence would be the norm.

    Thank you because that's exactly how I would have answered that question.

  11. Tino

    I'll say that imo r rated films are more realistic in terms of what would happen if these superhero worlds were real. Real bloodshed harsh Language and extreme violence would be the norm.

    My feeling is that you want to stay true to the source material. I understand what you guys are saying but I think that going R rated with most superheros risks moving too far away from the traditional stories with those characters. The majority of Marvel & DC comics are designed for teens or all ages so I think it's best for them to stick to that area for a movie or TV show. Now when it comes to an R rated comic book, I'm all for making it as violent or profane or dark as the source. For example, Cinemax is supposed to be developing The Boys (which is about a black ops government group that keeps superheros- who are crazed with their own power and celebrity- in line) and I couldn't be happier because pay cable is a great place for that book because it will let them go to the violent & pitch black humor extremes that the comic went to.

  12. TravisR

    My feeling is that you want to stay true to the source material. I understand what you guys are saying but I think that going R rated with most superheros risks moving too far away from the traditional stories with those characters. The majority of Marvel & DC comics are designed for teens or all ages so I think it's best for them to stick to that area for a movie or TV show. Now when it comes to an R rated comic book, I'm all for making it as violent or profane or dark as the source.

    I agree with this. For the same reason, Netflix's Jessica Jones was a near-perfect adaptation.

    I can also tell you that as these movies and shows seek to expand their audience (as all do), they're turning off people by making them more violent. My wife – no comic book fan, but enjoys the Marvel films and shows – cringes at the bone-crunching in Daredevil and other squeamish moments. Moreover, my kids would love to see these shows, but at 8 years old, they're far too young. No way they can see even the PG-13 Batman vs Superman, or Logan (which sucks, because they love the X-Men films).

    There's a way to do this without being gratuitous. When I was a kid, I used to think that an R rating or showing more violence made the films more mature, and worthy of attention by serious critics. But not now. Nothing screams "adolescent fantasy" than one of Zack Synder's films (Rorschach using a chainsaw on people's hands comes to mind).

  13. TravisR

    My feeling is that you want to stay true to the source material. I understand what you guys are saying but I think that going R rated with most superheros risks moving too far away from the traditional stories with those characters. The majority of Marvel & DC comics are designed for teens or all ages so I think it's best for them to stick to that area for a movie or TV show. Now when it comes to an R rated comic book, I'm all for making it as violent or profane or dark as the source. For example, Cinemax is supposed to be developing The Boys (which is about a black ops government group that keeps superheros- who are crazed with their own power and celebrity- in line) and I couldn't be happier because pay cable is a great place for that book because it will let them go to the violent & pitch black humor extremes that the comic went to.

    I didn't say all superheroes, but characters like Wolverine, who is for intent and purposes a killing machine, this "R" rated film was appropriate for his final Jackman appearance. The same with Deadpool, an assassin more than anything else.

  14. My wife and I saw Logan yesterday. We both enjoyed the film but would have preferred less graphic gore. That little girl is a good actress. Oddly, for a film I liked, I don't feel the necessity to see it again. That means no blu ray purchase for me.

  15. Sam Favate

    Moreover, my kids would love to see these shows, but at 8 years old, they're far too young. No way they can see even the PG-13 Batman vs Superman, or Logan (which sucks, because they love the X-Men films).

    What am I not remembering about Batman vs. Superman that made it more violent than the X-Men films?

  16. Robert Crawford

    I didn't say all superheroes, but characters like Wolverine, who is for intent and purposes a killing machine, this "R" rated film was appropriate for his final Jackman appearance. The same with Deadpool, an assassin more than anything else.

    The violence was the *least* R-rated part of Deadpool! 😀

  17. Johnny Angell

    My wife and I saw Logan yesterday. We both enjoyed the film but would have preferred less graphic gore. That little girl is a good actress. Oddly, for a film I liked, I don't feel the necessity to see it again. That means no blu ray purchase for me.

    I can't wait to have Logan on 4K/UHD disc!

  18. I don't think anything will kill the genre. To me, that's sort of like saying that the action genre or the sci-fi genre will one day be killed off. The genre will always exist, in my view. But there's no doubt that we're getting a lot of these movies, and I agree that the quantity probably isn't sustainable. Then again, the western was one of the most popular genres in Hollywood for decades, so I'm not sure the superhero craze will disappear anytime soon.

    What I think is on the decline (and if it's not, it will be soon) is indiscriminately making more and more franchises with little regard for whether it needs to be one in the first place, particularly when based on an existing property. This doesn't just apply to comic book movies, but really to adaptations of existing works in general.

    For example, the YA novel-to-franchise trajectory that Hollywood was on since Harry Potter has seemingly wound down. The Harry Potter movies were so successful, and then the Twilight movies so ridiculously overperformed (especially the first couple), that Hollywood thought that everyone wanted big YA adaptations. The last Harry Potter novel had so much plot, which was really all needed to wrap up the story, and the film producers decided to split it into two movies rather than cut out stuff that they felt the story needed. Then Twilight split its final book in half, even though as far as story content went, there was no justification for it – the films were far too long with a near-total absence of story, and the films suffered slightly at the box office. The Hunger Games tried the last book split after that, which was even more ridiculous given how few books there were in the first place, and that less happens in the last book than in the first two, and those two films saw a real hit at the box office. Then, the Divergent movies tried that trick, and their "part 1" finale did so poorly that they've given up on even making "part 2". Studios got so much wrong about the success of Harry Potter – at its core, the success came from having an original story told extraordinarily well. But studios took every lesson besides that from it, that they were popular because they were from YA novels, or popular because they had a teenage cast, or popular because they featured magic and fantasy elements, and while I think those things contributed, ultimately it was the story, and that the characters in it felt like real people.

    So I think we're seeing that with superhero / comic book movies to a certain extent, and that correction is already starting to happen, in my view. Going back a few years, I Frankenstein from Lionsgate was based on a comic and meant to be a franchise starter – only, no one was interested. Same for Seventh Son from Universal. The Amazing Spider-Man reboot was made because Sony didn't want to lose the property, not because anyone had a compelling point of view and a story that demanded being told, and it fizzled out after only two movies, despite the studio's leaked plans for half a dozen spinoffs and sequels. The Ghost Rider movie franchise never took off as its studio expected, and the rights reverted back to Marvel. The Fantastic Four reboot, also made so the studio could keep the property and not out of any burning desire to make it, was also dead on arrival. Batman V Superman underperformed – it turns out that having those two icons onscreen together isn't enough, the movie needs to deliver, and a lot of fans and critics found it lacking.

    I think, in general, studios are making too many movies where they're leaning on the reputation of an existing property, and spending $100 million or more to make movies that, by and large, people aren't asking for. The brand recognition will help get you booked into theaters, but with so many familiar brands being resurrected, the audience's hunger for nostalgia is being sated, and nobody's feeling a burning desire to run out and see every single adaptation just because it's familiar. And that would be fine, if they were being budgeted properly, but when studios spend over $100 million to make a movie, and over $100 million to market it, there's really no room for era.

    I think Marvel Studios will continue to succeed, because along with all of their world-building, they're good at balancing character development and plot, and deliver a quality entertainment two or three times a year.

    Ultimately, I think studios will either need to figure out a way to make some of these movies for less money, or will have to scale back. Because while I'm happy to continue on the journey that Marvel Studios has set up with their franchise, no one's automatically getting my money just for putting special effects onscreen. And they need to stop learning the wrong lessons. "Logan" wasn't a success because it was rated "R". "Logan" was a success because they told a story which felt true to the character, and the "R" rating was merely one of many tools that the filmmakers used to be true to the character.

  19. I had never heard of Deadpool before the movie came out. My wife and I see all our movies together, but we read about the graphic violence which doesn't bother me, and I went alone. (I would consider anyone who goes to movies just to see R rated violence rather sick — like searching the Internet for a snuff film) The violence, was not what made the movie a favourite of mine, but the humour. I found Deadpool flat out hilarious.
    Later when I bought the Blu ray, my wife half watched it as she was doing something else. She has the great talent of being able to know when to cover her eyes and miss most of the gore. She also thought the movie was hilarious.
    Logan is not hilarious. It is sad, depressing, and ultra violent. In other words, hardly an enjoyable sit through.
    We used to wait for these violent type movies to play on the regular TV networks. Then they would be re-cut to make them more accessible.
    I picture a group of early 20 year old guys having a few beers, going to see Logan and shouting "woah!" as each decapitation takes place.

  20. In my opinion, Logan need to have the R rating to fully tell the story. This was not a kids movie and even if it was PG, it was not a kids movie. It was dark and dealt with subject matters that are not 'fun' and definitely not for kids. Perhaps the violence was a bit over the top, but as ofthers of said, this is what the character does. He kills people. Violently. And hearing Patrick Stewart cursing while riding around on his wheel chair amused me to no end. 😀

    I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I also enjoyed Deadpool. Again, not a kids movie. Let the kids movies stay PG. Let the stories that work better with R be R.

    BTW – Thanks. Now I have to go get the R rated Batman vs Superman. You folks always make me spend more money… :razz:opcorn:

  21. David Willow

    In my opinion, Logan need to have the R rating to fully tell the story. This was not a kids movie and even if it was PG, it was not a kids movie. It was dark and dealt with subject matters that are not 'fun' and definitely not for kids. Perhaps the violence was a bit over the top, but as ofthers of said, this is what the character does. He kills people. Violently. And hearing Patrick Stewart cursing while riding around on his wheel chair amused me to no end. 😀

    I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I also enjoyed Deadpool. Again, not a kids movie. Let the kids movies stay PG. Let the stories that work better with R be R.

    BTW – Thanks. Now I have to go get the R rated Batman vs Superman. You folks always make me spend more money… :razz:opcorn:

    I think the story would have still worked with less gore, IMHO. I did enjoy the language.

    I did disapprove of the Professor choosing to stay over the night with the family they just met. They are being chased by an implacable enemy and surely he knew he was putting them in danger.

  22. Sam Favate

    These are some of the worst ideas I have ever heard:
    http://www.cbr.com/r-rated-superhero-films-we-want/

    Of the films mentioned here, I would see exactly none of them. An R-rated Superman?? People are nuts.

    I could see an argument for R-rated movies for Batman, Moon Knight and Black Widow, but I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to go that route for those characters.

    Invincible would probably have to go R-rated for the violence, even though AFAIK there's nothing in the way of nudity or profanity. A Lobo movie would definitely need to be rated R, but does the world really need a Lobo movie?

    Of the movies on that list, the only one I'd actually want to see would be an R-Rated X-Force movie, which (if done right) could be fun in a late nineties R-rated action movie kind of way.

    Superman, The Hulk, Spider-Man, Iron Man, Swamp Thing, Gambit etc. should never get an R-rated movie.

  23. Adam Lenhardt

    I could see an argument for R-rated movies for Batman, Moon Knight and Black Widow, but I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to go that route for those characters.

    There should never be an R-rated Batman movie. Batman is on kids' lunchboxes, pajamas, backpacks and dinnerware. It's a terrible perversion of the character to make an adults-only movie with him.

    Nevertheless, you can bet your socks that the Matt Reeves-directed Batman film will, at the very least, have an R-rated version on blu-ray. That's the direction the DC films are heading, to their own demise.

    Also, I would not want to see an R-rated Black Widow. Make it a political thriller like Winter Soldier, which was both mature and accessible to a younger audience.

    Moon Knight should ideally be a Netflix series, with the more adult tone of those shows (which is still not R-rated).

  24. FWIW, we already have an R-rated movie with Batman and Superman – the directors cut of Batman V Superman is rated R. It's a substantially better movie than it's PG-13 counterpoint, but it's not better because of more violence, it's better because it has more plot.

  25. Robert Crawford

    Some opinions expressed here I just can't agree with so I'm going to agree to disagree and move on.

    I believe it comes down to weather you want these movies to be true to the comic book or if you, like me, want something else. I was never into comic books so when I view these movies I'm looking for an action movie and not much more. I usually don't know the back story and usually don't care (although I have started watching the Marvel Avengers series in order but even with them there are a couple I will not watch – Too 'comic booky' for me).

    I see both sides and agree with both (can I do that? ;)). Either way, I enjoyed the movie.

  26. TJPC

    I had never heard of Deadpool before the movie came out. My wife and I see all our movies together, but we read about the graphic violence which doesn't bother me, and I went alone. (I would consider anyone who goes to movies just to see R rated violence rather sick — like searching the Internet for a snuff film) The violence, was not what made the movie a favourite of mine, but the humour. I found Deadpool flat out hilarious.
    Later when I bought the Blu ray, my wife half watched it as she was doing something else. She has the great talent of being able to know when to cover her eyes and miss most of the gore. She also thought the movie was hilarious.
    Logan is not hilarious. It is sad, depressing, and ultra violent. In other words, hardly an enjoyable sit through.
    We used to wait for these violent type movies to play on the regular TV networks. Then they would be re-cut to make them more accessible.
    I picture a group of early 20 year old guys having a few beers, going to see Logan and shouting "woah!" as each decapitation takes place.

    I enjoyed both movies, but I would say that Logan is far more responsible in its portrayal of violence than Deadpool was — specifically because it's not hilarious.

    And it was NOT like a Saw or the last Rambo, a gorefest action extravaganza. It was a very human story about characters who have experienced a lot of violence in their lives. The violence here has weight and consequences, it takes a toll both physically and on the characters' souls. That Laura has had to be so vicious from a young age is a tragedy, and the film recognizes that it's a tragedy. The narrative through line that gives Logan its suspense and tension is not whether Laura will survive — she's a trained fighter with metal claws in her hands and feet who can heal instantly from almost any injury — it's whether Logan and Charles will be able to give her a chance at a life where she doesn't have to fight anymore.

    And Logan himself, who has had to be so violent for so long, has a chance to be something else besides the ferocious animal. Through this little girl, he has a chance to be something better, something more decent and human.

    So while you're definitely entitled to your opinion in not enjoying the film, I wouldn't assume that those of us who did enjoy it enjoyed it because we were cheering on the violence. The violence was necessary, but it wasn't the point.

  27. The violence was really not my problem, it was the utterly depressing story. Whether this is true to the comic book or not, that doesn't matter to me. I was interested in an enjoyable experience in the theatre. It's just a movie, and it certainly didn't ruin my life, but I can think of many other more pleasant ways to spend 2+ hours. By the way, it was only based on a comic book, not Medea.

  28. TJPC

    The violence was really not my problem, it was the utterly depressing story. Whether this is true to the comic book or not, that doesn't matter to me. I was interested in an enjoyable experience in the theatre. It's just a movie, and it certainly didn't ruin my life, but I can think of many other more pleasant ways to spend 2+ hours. By the way, it was only based on a comic book, not Medea.

    Well, you stated this before seeing this film and was warned by some of us it wasn't going to be pleasant film for some of us, yet you still went ahead to see it.

  29. I had seen all the other Marvel movies, so it was a must see for me. The three you mentioned I was able to successfully avoid. I also have never seen Shindler's (sp?) List, although I could not be more in sympathy with Jewish people.

  30. TJPC

    I had never heard of Deadpool before the movie came out. My wife and I see all our movies together, but we read about the graphic violence which doesn't bother me, and I went alone. (I would consider anyone who goes to movies just to see R rated violence rather sick — like searching the Internet for a snuff film) The violence, was not what made the movie a favourite of mine, but the humour. I found Deadpool flat out hilarious.
    Later when I bought the Blu ray, my wife half watched it as she was doing something else. She has the great talent of being able to know when to cover her eyes and miss most of the gore. She also thought the movie was hilarious.
    Logan is not hilarious. It is sad, depressing, and ultra violent. In other words, hardly an enjoyable sit through.
    We used to wait for these violent type movies to play on the regular TV networks. Then they would be re-cut to make them more accessible.
    I picture a group of early 20 year old guys having a few beers, going to see Logan and shouting "woah!" as each decapitation takes place.

    Comic books have always been blessed with "sad, and depressing" stories. From Len Wein's work on Swamp Thing, and the Amazing Spider-Man to Frank Miller's 'The Dark Knight Returns'.
    Without sad stories comics would be a waste of time, and completely uninteresting.

    If it works in comic books, why not in movies?

  31. TJPC

    I had seen all the other Marvel movies, so it was a must see for me. The three you mentioned I was able to successfully avoid. I also have never seen Shindler's (sp?) List, although I could not be more in sympathy with Jewish people.

    Schindler's List is another film that I refuse to see in a movie theater for the same reasons why I avoided the other films in such a setting. However, like those other films, I have since watched them at home because it was important for me to see that story line on film, no matter how non-enjoyable it was for me to watch them. FYI, I have watched Schindler's List and The Passion of the Christ more than once over the years. Matter of fact, I will probably watch The Passion of the Christ again this upcoming Easter Holiday.

  32. TJPC

    I had seen all the other Marvel movies, so it was a must see for me.

    Just to clarify, Logan (or any of the X-Men related movies) is in no way related to or part of the Marvel Studios series of movies involving Avengers characters. Completely different production studios and continuities.

    Surely if someone enjoys the comic book hero movie genre in general it's a reason to be curious to check it out, but wanting to be "complete" because one has seen Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man and Strange isn't a reason to need to see Logan. Having seen all the other X-Men and Wolverine films is though.

    Going for second viewing today. It's an odd feeling. I think the movie is very, very good so I want to watch it again. Yet it stimulates us (at least me) in a way that leaves us feeling depressed (again, at least for me).

    But sometimes it's great to have a movie strongly move me, even if it's not a pleasant emotion. I couldn't handle that with every film I see. I wouldn't want to. But the occasional gut punch is something that I also feel has great value and is impressive when it can be elicited by a bunch of people play acting with make-up and props.

  33. Sean Bryan

    Going for second viewing today. It's an odd feeling. I think the movie is very, very good so I want to watch it again. Yet it stimulates us (at least me) in a way that leaves us feeling depressed (again, at least for me).

    But sometimes it's great to have a movie strongly move me, even if it's not a pleasant emotion. I couldn't handle that with every film I see. I wouldn't want to. But the occasional gut punch is something that I also feel has great value and is impressive when it can be elicited by a bunch of people play acting with make-up and props.

    Couldn't agree more. It's a movie I want to see again despite how it makes me feel. That feeling is balanced by the fact that I knew I saw something remarkable the first time I watched it. There's an appreciation of the craft that drives me to spend more time with it.

    I tend to prefer entertainment with happier endings. There's enough in the real world to feel down about and entertainment is a bit of an escape for me, but I agree completely that there can be great value in a "gut punch."

  34. I used to see movies I liked in theaters repeatedly. I've probably spent too much time on too many different threads going into great detail about this, so I'll just quickly say that the rising costs of movie tickets make that impractical for me these days – a single ticket to see Logan in my area costs more than the Blu-ray will cost. So, regardless of the quality of the movie, I have to limit myself to one theatrical viewing.

    With that said, I will definitely be picking up the Blu-ray and will enjoy rewatching the movie at home. It has a "late night" vibe to me – I can't imagine watching this in the middle of the afternoon.

  35. Sean Bryan

    Just to clarify, Logan (or any of the X-Men related movies) is in no way related to or part of the Marvel Studios series of movies involving Avengers characters. Completely different production studios and continuities.

    Surely if someone enjoys the comic book hero movie genre in general it's a reason to be curious to check it out, but wanting to be "complete" because one has seen Iron Man, Cap, Thor, Hulk, Ant-Man and Strange isn't a reason to need to see Logan. Having seen all the other X-Men and Wolverine films is though.

    Going for second viewing today. It's an odd feeling. I think the movie is very, very good so I want to watch it again. Yet it stimulates us (at least me) in a way that leaves us feeling depressed (again, at least for me).

    But sometimes it's great to have a movie strongly move me, even if it's not a pleasant emotion. I couldn't handle that with every film I see. I wouldn't want to. But the occasional gut punch is something that I also feel has great value and is impressive when it can be elicited by a bunch of people play acting with make-up and props.

    I did indeed see all the other X-Men movies. I was an avid comic book reader right through highschool, but there are several factors here:

    1). High school for me ended in 1972.

    2). The comics I read were exclusively DC comics in what I think is now called "the silver age". These were fun stories where the hero always won. There was no tortured hero looking for the meaning of existence, or "Graphic Novels" (– mind you I love the "Watchmen"
    movie). We did like serious stories however, and I remember being both disappointed and offended by the 1960s Batman TV show.

    3). I don't feel this way now, of course, but we DC people distained Marvel comics, as a rediculous imitation of the true super hero genre. Because of this, except for their names and cheezy Saturday morning cartoon occasionally ("When Captain America throws his mighty shield"…), I had no knowledge of them.

    These factors made me approach these movies differently. We have made each movie a family occasion for myself, my wife, and my mother-in-law. I am not there to see a true representation of life's problems, but to enjoy myself. This is why, except for La La Land and Hidden Figures I will never see the Oscar nominated films, and barely even heard of them.

  36. Sam Favate

    This is sheer lunacy. Hopefully, nothing like this will ever be considered by Lucasfilm:

    I've read tons of SW expanded universe material and even the violent/dark/R rated stuff that is good strays too far from the generally fun adventure of the movies. Like you said though, I can't see LFL ever doing something that dumb especially when they're making billions off of PG-13 movies.

    As an aside, the Triple Zero and Bee-Tee characters mentioned on that listed would be ruined or dramatically changed if they were in an R rated movie. They're really funny because they bicker like R2 and Threepio but it's over how to murder people. If you saw them actually massacring people, it would make them evil rather than humorous and completely change and destroy the characters.

  37. Schindler's List is probably the LEAST depressing Holocaust movie I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of 'em!

    Seriously, it has some disturbing content, but it's Finding Dory next to stuff like, say, The Grey Zone.

    I made it about a third of the way through the book 12 Years a Slave, and that killed any interest I had in seeing the movie. Birth of a Nation I currently have out from the library. . .I may or may not get around to it.

  38. i ain't seen the film-but i can tell it was a mess just by how graphic it is. the

    Johnny Angell

    I think the story would have still worked with less gore, IMHO. I did enjoy the language.

    I did disapprove of the Professor choosing to stay over the night with the family they just met. They are being chased by an implacable enemy and surely he knew he was putting them in danger.

    it would. i haven't seen the film-but the graphic violence ruins the story. he regretted the lives he took, he's always shown restraint, he wants laura to avoid making the same choices he did.

  39. Well like you said. You "ain't seen the film."

    I suggest maybe seeing it. You may actually enjoy it. That happens sometimes when people actually see the movie. 😀

    Btw welcome to the forum. :thumbsup:

Leave a Reply