Logan Lucky (Steven Soderbergh, 2017)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Message
Author
User avatar
Luke M
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Logan Lucky (Steven Soderbergh, 2017)

#51 Post by Luke M » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:44 pm

I live in South Georgia and there’s a digital billboard that advertises this film. Thought that was kinda interesting. Anyway, I saw this tonight and enjoyed it. I think it’s probably upper tier Soderbergh. The discussion about star power and Ocean’s 11, I remember Clooney, Pitt, and Damon being so huge back then. But today I’d much rather see a Tatum or Driver film than those guys.

User avatar
All the Best People
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 7:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Logan Lucky (Steven Soderbergh, 2017)

#52 Post by All the Best People » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:51 am

In the first act of this film, I thought I was watching one of the very best movies of the year, but then the plot kicked in. I mean, the plot is a parody, and fine, but there's still too much of it. I just wanted to see their lives. But it still ends up a very good movie, thanks to the cast and the pacing and, in particular, the directing. Soderbergh really knows how to cut a scene, even a simple dialogue scene, the way he alters the shots and cutting patterns to match the changing aspects of the scene itself, it all moves really well, and has a great many laughs. (The Game of Thrones bit was far funnier than I had expected.) A very pleasant time.

Interesting, Soderbergh's observation that it didn't perform in southern areas. I thought it was very respectful of its characters; yes, they can be silly, but that's all part of the parodic plot. The characterizations are largely generous. Perhaps a failure of marketing? Who knows.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Posts: 28762
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Logan Lucky (Steven Soderbergh, 2017)

#53 Post by domino harvey » Sat Dec 02, 2017 1:03 pm

This film is so light and breezy that I think it’s tempting to undersell how ridiculously well-made it is. As I’ve said countless times before, Soderbergh is our greatest working director and he is so efficient and effective at the basics of film grammar that removed from the (admittedly fun) plot, the film is tremendous in terms of fundamentals of narrative construction, editing, and a warmth for its characters ever at-odds with the classic Soderbergh aesthetic sterility. The script ably helps. Nearly every character in the menagerie gets at least one little spiel of clever but not screenwriter-clever soliloquies or laugh-lines, and absolute nothing parts are fleshed in by the casting choices (reminding me a lot of the Informant!). I thought Dwight Yoakam stole the movie every time he was on screen as the warden, and the Game of Thrones exchange is a great example of how the film somehow finds fresh humor in realizing easy punchlines aren’t the point, the scenario itself and the internal sketch comedy logic of the back and forth are. The film is utterly unpretentious in a way that reminds me of the best of Hawks, and for all his stylistic flourishes and crutches, Soderbergh’s approach is straightforward and true. This is top tier Soderbergh, for sure, and thank God he’s back… not that he ever really left, but he could have another couple decades' worth of great films like this in him!

User avatar
knives
Posts: 14040
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: Logan Lucky (Steven Soderbergh, 2017)

#54 Post by knives » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:18 pm

I'll join the chorus that this is a fun and great experience. Though I think more so than the Oceans films this has an amazing affinity to Magic Mike and The Girlfriend Experience with its social and economic concerns. Though this lays that out much more organically and shows a real leap forward for Soderbergh as a storyteller (helped by a truly great script).

To Dom's point on actors I have to say the moment in the film that really highlights its greatness to me is when at the start Tatum is let go instead of cutting to him immediately in his disappointment his reaction is held to the background as two extras in conversation taking up the foreground action. That's such a real and empathetic moment that really helps to highlight the weirdness of modern life. Speaking of weirdness the emotional peak of John Denver followed up by her normal little girl reaction works in a way that I don't think I can describe.

Post Reply