Logan Lucky
1.5/4
Starring: Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig, Riley Keough, Farrah McKenzie, Katie Holmes, Brian Gleeson, Jack Quaid, Katherine Waterston, Hilary Swank
Rated PG-13 for Language and Some Crude Comments
"Logan Lucky" might have been more successful had it had a more consistent vision. If a movie can't decide how it wants to view its story and characters, how can the audience? I realize that I get obtuse and abstract when talking about movies in this way, and for that, dear reader, I apologize. But this movie made me ask questions that should have been answered within the first five minutes. Like, is this movie a heist film, or a parody of one? Are we supposed to laugh at the characters' stupidity, or be impressed by their cleverness? Surely a filmmaker as talented as Steven Soderbergh would know that a movie has to answer those questions as soon as possible or risk falling on its face. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens.
The plot, so far as I could tell, goes like this. Jimmy Logan (Tatum) just lost his job as a miner for a technicality. Out of options, he plots with his brother Clyde (Driver) and his sister Mellie (Keough) to rob a major car race. To do this, he needs the help of the idiotic Bang brothers, Fish (Quaid) and Sam (Gleeson). And their father, Joe Bang (Craig). This heist will not go down without detours. Least of all because Joe is still in prison.
What is this movie trying to be? Is it an action movie, a comedy, or a parody? It's certainly not action, since there's so little of it. I suppose it could be trying to be a comedy, but precious little of the jokes actually work. And if it's trying to be a parody, then shouldn't the robbery be the poster child of ineptitude?
This is the second major collaboration between Channing Tatum and Steven Soderbergh. Well, technically it's the third, since Tatum did have a small but important role in "Side Effects" (which was allegedly Soderbergh's final film...I guess Hayao Miyazaki isn't the only one who keeps postponing retirement). To compare this to the criminally underrated "Magic Mike" is quite frankly insulting to the 2012 film, which I voted as being the best film of that year. This is a train wreck of conflicting ideas, a half-baked plot, and characters so badly developed that calling them "one-dimensional" would be hyperbole.
The acting does not impress. Channing Tatum, who has long since shed his pretty boy image, looks lost. He does what he can, but the dialogue defeats him and there are times when he looks like a dear caught in the headlights. His co-star Adam Driver is even worse. He was terrific in "Silence," the Martin Scorcese movie from earlier this year that absolutely no one saw, but not here. He's awful. No one else bears mentioning except Daniel Craig. Craig is certainly looney and about as far away as he can get from James Bond (he's even given an "introducing" credit), but he's not given much to work with. No one else bears mention except for Hilary Swank, who shows up at the end as an FBI agent. Swank is a talented actress, but she's given her share of lifeless performances ("P.S. I Love You" and "The Black Dahlia" come to mind), but never has she been this bad. Her career is in freefall at the moment, and if she ever wants to reverse that trend, she'd better be able to convince everyone that it was her doppleganger who appeared in this mess and was actively trying to sabotage her career.
"Logan Lucky" goes wrong in so many ways. The actors all underplay their roles, which is a mistake in something that's (apparently) so fatuous. Characters and their relationships are poorly developed; some of which aren't explained at all. And for all the jokes at the expense of rednecks, the robbery is surprisingly clever.
Avoid.
Starring: Channing Tatum, Adam Driver, Daniel Craig, Riley Keough, Farrah McKenzie, Katie Holmes, Brian Gleeson, Jack Quaid, Katherine Waterston, Hilary Swank
Rated PG-13 for Language and Some Crude Comments
"Logan Lucky" might have been more successful had it had a more consistent vision. If a movie can't decide how it wants to view its story and characters, how can the audience? I realize that I get obtuse and abstract when talking about movies in this way, and for that, dear reader, I apologize. But this movie made me ask questions that should have been answered within the first five minutes. Like, is this movie a heist film, or a parody of one? Are we supposed to laugh at the characters' stupidity, or be impressed by their cleverness? Surely a filmmaker as talented as Steven Soderbergh would know that a movie has to answer those questions as soon as possible or risk falling on its face. Unfortunately, that's exactly what happens.
The plot, so far as I could tell, goes like this. Jimmy Logan (Tatum) just lost his job as a miner for a technicality. Out of options, he plots with his brother Clyde (Driver) and his sister Mellie (Keough) to rob a major car race. To do this, he needs the help of the idiotic Bang brothers, Fish (Quaid) and Sam (Gleeson). And their father, Joe Bang (Craig). This heist will not go down without detours. Least of all because Joe is still in prison.
What is this movie trying to be? Is it an action movie, a comedy, or a parody? It's certainly not action, since there's so little of it. I suppose it could be trying to be a comedy, but precious little of the jokes actually work. And if it's trying to be a parody, then shouldn't the robbery be the poster child of ineptitude?
This is the second major collaboration between Channing Tatum and Steven Soderbergh. Well, technically it's the third, since Tatum did have a small but important role in "Side Effects" (which was allegedly Soderbergh's final film...I guess Hayao Miyazaki isn't the only one who keeps postponing retirement). To compare this to the criminally underrated "Magic Mike" is quite frankly insulting to the 2012 film, which I voted as being the best film of that year. This is a train wreck of conflicting ideas, a half-baked plot, and characters so badly developed that calling them "one-dimensional" would be hyperbole.
The acting does not impress. Channing Tatum, who has long since shed his pretty boy image, looks lost. He does what he can, but the dialogue defeats him and there are times when he looks like a dear caught in the headlights. His co-star Adam Driver is even worse. He was terrific in "Silence," the Martin Scorcese movie from earlier this year that absolutely no one saw, but not here. He's awful. No one else bears mentioning except Daniel Craig. Craig is certainly looney and about as far away as he can get from James Bond (he's even given an "introducing" credit), but he's not given much to work with. No one else bears mention except for Hilary Swank, who shows up at the end as an FBI agent. Swank is a talented actress, but she's given her share of lifeless performances ("P.S. I Love You" and "The Black Dahlia" come to mind), but never has she been this bad. Her career is in freefall at the moment, and if she ever wants to reverse that trend, she'd better be able to convince everyone that it was her doppleganger who appeared in this mess and was actively trying to sabotage her career.
"Logan Lucky" goes wrong in so many ways. The actors all underplay their roles, which is a mistake in something that's (apparently) so fatuous. Characters and their relationships are poorly developed; some of which aren't explained at all. And for all the jokes at the expense of rednecks, the robbery is surprisingly clever.
Avoid.
Comments
Post a Comment