Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mel O&amp;#039;Drama" data-source="post: 320374" data-attributes="member: 23">Logan (2017)

<img src="https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Flgecine.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2Flogan_poster.jpg&amp;f=1&amp;nofb=1" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="width: 423px" />

The only things I knew about this were that it&#039;s set in the future compared with other X-Films and it was extremely well-received.

The former turned out to be untrue. It&#039;s set only twelve years later than its release date, and it was already established in the first X-Men that they take place sometime in the future anyway. If there&#039;s a time jump it can only be a few years at the most.

As for my reception of the film. I didn&#039;t hate it, but I&#039;d say my elevated expectations weren&#039;t met. At all.

The whole X-rated business dragged it down. The language felt like &quot;swearing because we can&quot; rather than anything else. Like Deadpool, every line in the first twenty minutes was peppered with &quot;fucks&quot; which seemed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And when Charles started dropping them, I knew they&#039;d lost sight of character.&nbsp; Meanwhile, the violence was pretty standard: somewhere between a slasher and a tediously violent video game.

Don&#039;t get me started on Caliban&#039;s Westcountry accent. Stephen Merchant looked the part - and I really liked that there were even nods to the garb he wore in his original comic appearance - but the speech patterns were so off-model. The same can be said for Donald Pierce, who was equally unrecognisable and ultimately pretty dull and generic.

The film&#039;s most unforgivable moment was Logan dismissing X-Men comics as &quot;fantasy for bedwetters&quot;. The arrogance of the writers was astounding.

That said, the film&#039;s concept and story were interesting enough. The performances were decent, it was nicely shot and was an acceptable way for the character to bow out. I just won&#039;t be in a rush to rewatch it again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mel O'Drama, post: 320374, member: 23"] [CENTER][B][SIZE=6]Logan[/SIZE][/B] (2017) [IMG width="423px"]https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Flgecine.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F03%2Flogan_poster.jpg&f=1&nofb=1[/IMG] The only things I knew about this were that it's set in the future compared with other X-Films and it was extremely well-received. The former turned out to be untrue. It's set only twelve years later than its release date, and it was already established in the first [I]X-Men[/I] that they take place sometime in the future anyway. If there's a time jump it can only be a few years at the most. As for my reception of the film. I didn't hate it, but I'd say my elevated expectations weren't met. At all. The whole X-rated business dragged it down. The language felt like "swearing because we can" rather than anything else. Like [I]Deadpool[/I], every line in the first twenty minutes was peppered with "fucks" which seemed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And when Charles started dropping them, I knew they'd lost sight of character. Meanwhile, the violence was pretty standard: somewhere between a slasher and a tediously violent video game. Don't get me started on Caliban's Westcountry accent. Stephen Merchant looked the part - and I really liked that there were even nods to the garb he wore in his original comic appearance - but the speech patterns were so off-model. The same can be said for Donald Pierce, who was equally unrecognisable and ultimately pretty dull and generic. The film's most unforgivable moment was Logan dismissing X-Men comics as "fantasy for bedwetters". The arrogance of the writers was astounding. That said, the film's concept and story were interesting enough. The performances were decent, it was nicely shot and was an acceptable way for the character to bow out. I just won't be in a rush to rewatch it again.[/CENTER] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?