Member review

This weekend i went to see logan lucky, and had high expectations of the film. Because of its categorized genre of crime,drama,comedy, i also expected it to be compelling, drawing me to the edge of my seat with a side note of humour. Also, as channing tatum was starring, having a personal love for his other films,e.g dear john, magic mike, this furthered my excitement.

The film is based in west Virginia, focusing on the Logan family, who are said to have inherited a curse, causing them bad luck. Jimmy Logan (Tatum) is a failed athlete, fired from his job and has an estranged relationship with his ex wife and daughter, and his brother Clyde (Adam Driver) is an amputee from Iraq. Together they recruit a team of people to help them rob a bank vault, on one of the biggest motor races of the year. They enlist their sister, Mellie Logan ( Riley Keough) Joe (Daniel Craig) as a convicted bank robber and his two brothers. Together they amount to the usual team of misfits expected in a story line such as this.

Overall, i was happy to sit through the film, mostly entertained with some hit or miss humour. As said, this humour was hit or miss as not all audience would have found the jokes funny, and i think it would appeal to the younger generation more so, hence the 12A rating. The plot of the film was as it said in the descriptions online, with the occasional twists and turns which left the audience slightly confused, rather than on edge or thrilled. Tatum gave a good performance, with his usual quiet, sensitive persona, yet with a ‘bad boy’ edge to him, often shown in his films which has built his widely female fan base and is undeniably lovable. The tactile casting of other characters such as the 2006 James Bond, Daniel Craig helped the crime elemet to the film. Craig's character was essentially the backbone of the humour element in the film, as his wit and villainous likeability took over. Although certain elements in the film were entertaining, it wasn't a movie that left you speechless, wanted more and thriving with the action, it was towards the more childlike end of the spectrum, for young boys who just want to see a few people get punched or injured and the idea of stealing, not a strong story line to follow.

The ending scenes of this film were where most of the questions arise. The whole plot had been dismantled and left the audience unsure on what was happening. This screen flipped from character to characters situation, showing each of their personal aftermath of the ‘Robbery’ and the interactions they had with each other, with them all joining together in the end. The end scene held all the characters together, in Clyde's bar, with an apparent happy ending. However this was compromised by the original team being joined by one of the detectives from the case, with an unclear view on her motives. This however could possible be opening the film up to a sequel, or just some sort of ropey cliffhanger.

Lastly , i would only recommend this film to a younger audience, for people who want a silly weeknight movie to have on, or just any person who is a Channing Tatum fan, because i personally feel like alongside Craig's wit, his performance rescued the film. Saying that, even he could not make me rate the film any more than 3 stars, as it just didn't interest me to the point where i couldn't take my eyes of the screen, and soon became unfocused and being distracted by the other goings on in the cinema.