Logan Lucky (2017) Poster

(2017)

User Reviews

Add a Review
168 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
4/10
Not good.
zasmith-288757 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
There are some great heist movies out there and considering this is by the oceans 11 guys I thought it would be great. But it just isn't. The characters have no development to them. In a heist movie you are supposed to root for the robbers and want them to succeed. This movie made me not care about their plan and the jokes in it are not thought out properly.

Channing Tatum's character was not very believable as both a red neck or a single dad down on his luck. Adam Driver was very boring and stilted with his southern drawl not really impressing anyone. Katie holmes was also in this film but she is a small character. I thank god for this as she just can't act convincingly (watch Batman Begins and you will see why Nolan got someone else to play Rachel in Dark Knight). Overall the 2 of the 3 main characters were boring and the actors were not on their best for this film either because of poor direction or because the actors did not give a sh*t.

The only good person in it for me was Daniel Craig. His accent was okay, nothing to get hard over, and some lines he said were at least funny. The little girl in it was okay. Child actors are always going to be rubbish but at least she was convincing. The two redneck brothers were just a stereotype to be laughed at but they again fall flat and are not funny.

The "comedy" in this "comedy, crime, drama" is stilted and boring with very few jokes making me laugh. For instance during the prison riot in there's this big Game Of Thrones reference which falls flat on its face and is boring. It revolves around the books taking a long time to come out…..That's it, no set up, no reason, it was just there to be "random" and relevant as far as I can tell.

I actually made a note of the number of times the audience laughed during the film. Most of the time the audience was silent as the jokes were told except for one or two times like when a red neck says that he is "really good with computers, all the twitters I know em"……No accounting for peoples tastes in comedy I suppose.

The plot is simple and effective with the actual "heist" bit being okayish. This film was marketed as being from the same guys who did Oceans 11,12 and 13 however the script was written by Rebecca Blunt who to this day has received no other writing credits for any other movies. This is where you have been lied to ladies and gentlemen! I believed going into this film that the plot would be written by the team that wrote Oceans but nope!!

The film is not as clever as Oceans 11 for its heist plot. The big reveal at the end is boring, revealing that they just threw a few bin bags full of money in a garbage truck, berried it and then dug it up a couple of months later whilst the FBI was following them?? How did they achieve this anyway??? Surely the FBI would have been keeping tabs on them the entire time and knew they were doing this?!

The technical side of things works quite well for this movie as the cut scenes showing the plot of the heist are edited really well. The film did have a flow to it, not being bogged down with pacing issues at all. The colour palette used as well was very efficient and was dark when needed. The sound did not wow me in the least but it was not awful like in some other movies I have seen and was used effectively to create feelings and atmosphere. There was a big John Denver vibe going on which is in keeping with a stereotype that all people from west Virginia love John Denver and know all the words to "take me home, country road" which is simply not the case.

All in all this film has good parts in it but not enough to warrant a £8.95 theatre ticket. With characters that are flat and comedy that is not funny this film is not the worst I have seen but is missing things that would make it a good movie. I would suggest that you wait for it on DVD or stream it if you really want to see it. Seeing it in the cinema was a bit of a rip off.
28 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
I mean...it's not the worst heist movie ever
jerrycoliver21 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I have to give it a 5, because honestly, my wife loved it, so there is something there. It's not a "thinker", and it's not clever. I think the best way to describe it is a good movie you can watch while doing something else.

My biggest problems with the movie are below, but before that, the acting was good and there were some lines that were very good and jokes that totally landed. I honestly didn't realize it was a Steven Soderberg movie until the credits at the end. The lighting was good, consistent. The editing, well I'm not sure they had to work with and what the director/producer wanted, but I felt like it could have been better. Overall, I feel like the cast and crew were committed and gave their best.

The downers are mostly script related though there were some very poor directing choices (which is funny, because I said the same thing about the Ocean's movies, but they could get away with it because the script and performances were untouchable.)

1. There is so much talk about the area and the geography it became very clear 5 minutes in that the writer has never been to the area, they just looked it up on a map. Case in point, if this all happened in real life, it would be nearly a 5 hour drive to and from WV to Charlotte each time.

2. I had no connection with the characters. I just didn't care because they weren't set up, their needs/wants.

Why did Jimmy need to rob a bank in the first place? He didn't need that much money to move to Lynchburg (I mean if he's commuting 5 hours for a job in Charlotte, wouldn't a 4 hour drive to Lynchburg be the same or better)? Does he have a history of crime or robbing banks?

What motivated the idea in the first place? (Had the scene where he saved the worker's life when he was buried in the tunnel, been the opening scene (before credits) it wouldn't have come out of the blue and felt more natural.

A good example of not setting up characters, is that it was a good 1/2 hour into the movie before I realized that Milly was Jimmy's sister, not his girlfriend.

3. Why did his brother go along with him? Why was Joe Bang interested? Why would Joe Bang want his brothers involved when one of them had helped his wife steal Joe's savings? Why did Joe even want anyone else involved especially his brothers who opened their mouths about his savings?

Joe and his brothers never even had good chemistry and only a few minutes on screen together.

4. Adam Driver never had to go to prison in the first place...so why? If he didn't there was no need for the brothers anyway.

5. The story with the nurse was so weak...it really didn't need to be in there.

6. The FBI characters where introduced so late into the story it is just distracting. You have to introduce the main characters in the first act you can't pull them into the story that far in.

7. What was the point of giving the money back? The only people they screwed over were the Bang Brothers. But there never felt like there was any animosity between the Logans and Bangs, and there was never a suggestion the Bangs were even upset at the end when they got screwed over...so why?

8. Why did a multi-millionaire walk into a crappy bar in WV at the start of the movie? Couldn't Jimmy and his brother crossed paths with him in a more realistic setting like, the motor speedway that Jimmy was working at?

9. I didn't need the back story to the race car driver, that just ate up time and wasn't funny.

10. Why give that much money to the prison at the end but completely screw over the Bang brother who did more work? Why give the banker with the cake get money?

I was just kind of shocked this script was bought. The writer is apparently a pen name, so I'm assuming someone very famous who is likely an actor in the movie was the writer and that's probably the only reason it was picked up.

But after all that, most people don't get that obsessed with the story like I do (ie, my wife) and if you're looking for something fun, yeah I don't think you can go wrong with the movie...it could have been funnier, it could have been more clever, but it wasn't a horrible movie, just some very poor writing.
24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
A welcome surprise at the end of summer
Alanjackd31 August 2017
After a summer of remakes and so called blockbusters i popped along to watch this with no hopes or misgivings...I hold an unlimited card so went knowing the cost was immaterial.

What I found was typical of the kind of movie you decide to just take in because I have a card and 2 hours to spare..

A little cracker of a gem to finish off the summer.

Some people are complaining about it not being what the trailers says it is...but if you know about movies then you should know that they never are.

A very well made " Just watch it" movie which never takes itself too seriously and makes you smile and chuckle from start to finish.

Everybody is in on what this movie should be..in my opinion somewhere in between "Stir Crazy" and " The Italian Job" ...with a pinch of "Twin Peaks" added to the recipe.

Surprisingly cheerful and just what the doctor ordered for the onslaught of the usual rehash and part 2's and 3's.

The only way to make up your mind is to suspend your senses and dabble with this for a while.
27 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Slow Boring and Beyond Dull - Terrible Script -
filmtravel10118 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This has to be one of the worst of Steven's movies. The script and directing was horrible. The characters and pace of the movie was so slow and highly unrealistic that many people just walked out of the theatre.

There is not really a lot of comedy or smart set ups like Ocean 11 movies and instead it is a meandering of endless short set ups by idiot red necks that at first you think just perhaps there is some back story that convinces us that they are really sharp like in Ocean 11 - but they are not and it just gets tiresome and the directing is amateurish with no style whatsoever and silly characters that do not add up to any clever thriller or comedy.

It is shocking to see 90% on Rotten Tomatoes or even a 7 on here. The end has little punch and you're so exhausted and bored out of your mind even with great actors but the pay off is unrealistic and you no longer care except to want to slap the writer and director for even making the stupid movie and wasting the great actors.

I give it a 4 only because of the actors performances even with a lame script. And please do not use Channing ever again. He is dull as paint
51 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Another Cookie Cutter Heist Film
david-sarkies21 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Once again I'm not really all that sure why I saw this because even though it is a heist movie, it pretty much follows the cookie cutter script that seems to be the standard for heist movies. In fact I saw another heist movie earlier this year that was almost identical except that the main characters were pensioners who had been diddled out of their retirement as opposed to a bunch of hicks whose injuries have resulted them being left on the scrap heap, and when I say almost identical I actually mean literally scene for scene.

Okay, I was going to say word for word, but that doesn't really work considering the previous film was set in a major city (New York I think) where as this is set in Charlotteville, North Carolina. Okay, they also have a prison break, and they robbed a speedway as opposed to a bank, but the way the film progressed, especially with the police investigating it and then coming up empty, and the protagonists (anti-heroes if you will), getting away with it. Mind you, it was pretty clever what they did, and how they covered their tracks, but the funny thing is that these guys didn't actually come across all that smart. Also, there were some pretty cool laugh-out-loud moments, at least for me.

One of the things that did stand out was the setting – Charlotteville, and it was rather ironic that the whole protests occurred the week or so before I saw this film because it really gave me an idea of what the culture is like down there – very working class. In a way it created a picture of a region of the United States that had been ravaged by globalisation, and a world where if you are injured then nobody wants to touch you, or hire you. In fact our hero was basically told that he could no longer work because he had a pre-existing injury, which was the catalyst for the whole heist.

While I would suggest that it was a fun movie, the reality is that there wasn't really all that much different here than the film that I saw earlier in the year (Going in Style). Sure, the setting was slightly different, and the way they went about committing the heist was different, but in the end it seems like it simply came out of a cloning factory and really had little to no substance, or thought, to actually making it an individual film (except for a couple of really cool jokes that is).
36 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Logan Lousy
bittergreen-3320527 August 2017
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not going to pretend I'm a professional critic and write a novel- length review...that's just pretentious. But I do want to say this: Logan Lucky sucked. It wasn't even remotely funny. It was extremely slow, dragged on, and the ending--I ticked the spoiler box just in case, but believe me, there's nothing to spoil--the ending felt so much like a cheap, lousy cop-out. Lousy, lousy, movie.
24 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Somewhere in there should be a good movie.
amexspam19 September 2017
Slooooow. I believe some of the tedium was intentional (i.e. these are mentally dim characters so everything they say or do is slow), but the scenes felt heavy handed and went on too long in trying to make sure that everyone watching would understand what the scene was trying to say. And there were far too many subplots that were either unnecessary or didn't go anywhere. The actors did a great job with what they had to work with, there were many excellent performances, and the main plot was clever, but the direction was poor. With a better director this might have been a good movie.

Finally, I think they owe the citizens of West Virginia an apology for making every character a stereotypical "southern country folk". All that was missing was banjo and some moonshine.
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
The film has some big laugh lines and a lot of cleverness, but it is implausible to a fault.
texshelters27 August 2017
Logan Lucky: Sometimes You're too Clever Logan Lucky (LL) is too clever for it's own good. The film has some big laugh lines and a lot of cleverness, but it is implausible to a fault. Sure, it's a work of fiction, but it has to pass the the credulity test. LL fails several times. The film involves a heist, a divorce, a prison break out and break in, car swapping, money swapping, wife swapping. Well, not the last one.

Jimmy Logan (Channing Tatum) is a laid off worker looking for a score. Jimmy Logan's ex-wife played by Katie Holmes is poorly written and poorly acted. Holmes, in fact, is the worst part of the film.

The characters in the film are stereotypes. Jimmy's brother, Clyde Logan played by Adam Driver, has a missing arm from fighting in Iraq. So the film makes a series of arm jokes that are funny at first and eventually play like bad schtick. Give it a rest. We get it!

Daniel Craig is hilarious as Joe Bang, a munitions expert. However, his idiot brothers were so over the top as "stupid mountain people" that it balances out the hilarity of Craig's performance. Seth MacFarlane made a funny appearance, and I didn't even know it was him. That's a good thing, frankly. Talk about tired schtick.

While character stereotypes can be funny, they can also be cliché. The cops in this movie were too stupid to believe and not funny. If you are going to make a believable heist movie, making the police impossibly stupid isn't the way to go. At least the FBI had some balls, so to speak.

One of the funniest bits in the film involves prisoners rioters who can't have their demands met because certain books have not yet been published. It's a great homage, and that's all I am going to say about it. I am sure a clip of that seen will appear online in a a few months.

The film is both irritatingly illogical and surprisingly clever. Another run through on the script would have helped, but then again, it wasn't trying to be Game of Thrones or something. If it was, someone would have had to die. Or did they?

Rating: Rent it, if only for Craig's performance. See "Hell or High Water" or "Heist" for a better written and more entertaining heist experience. .

Peace, Tex Shelters
26 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
An inversion of the Ocean's films but just as much fun
DJKwa14 August 2017
A few years ago director Steven Soderbergh made no secret of his waning passion for filmmaking. He announced his intention to retire from feature films following the release of 2013's Behind the Candelabra and cited his desire to pursue other creative interests. Well, it may have taken four years (and a brief stint directing TV's The Knick) to reignite his filmmaking passion, but Soderbergh proves his hand behind the camera is as assured as ever in the rollicking heist caper Logan Lucky.

Aptly described by Soderbergh himself as an "anti-glam version of an Ocean's movie", Logan Lucky is a return to the style of filmmaking that made his Ocean's trilogy box office hits. The film moves at a neat pace, features a strong ensemble cast and is packed with enough twist and turns to keep things interesting throughout its two hour running time.

The story follows the Logan family, brothers Jimmy (Channing Tatum) and Clyde (Adam Driver) and their sister Mellie Logan (Riley Keough), who are known for their family history of bad-luck. After loosing his job at a mine located underneath the Charlotte Motor Speedway, Jimmy plans to pull of an elaborate heist to put the Logan's financial woes behind them and break the family curse. With intricate knowledge of a series of underground tubes that run from the Speedway to a central bank vault filled with millions of dollars, Jimmy sees the perfect opening to rob the vault during a NARSCAR race. To pull it off, he enlists the help of his siblings along with bomb expert Joe Bang (a scene stealing Daniel Craig) and his two brothers, Sam (Brian Gleeson) and Fish Bang (Jack Quaid). The only problem: Joe's in prison. So on top of concocting a plan to steal the cash, they'll need to figure out a way to break Joe out of prison and get him back with no one the wiser. No pressure.

It's a zany comedy about unremarkable characters punching well above their weight but through sheer luck managing to pull things off. Half the fun of the film is seeing things not happening to plan but somehow working out in the end. To its credit, the film never treats itself too seriously and invites you to laugh along with the character's mishaps and the farcical parts of the story are frequently the funniest. One gag involving a prison riot and a jab at Game of Thrones writer George R.R. Martin's glacial writing pace is as screwy as it is funny.

For the most part, the film moves along at a nice pace. Just like in the Ocean's films, Soderbergh (who edits his own film) employs slick, fast cut editing to keep the heist scenes interesting and involving. He also manages to make good use of an impressive ensemble cast, with the likes of Seth MacFarlane, Katie Holmes, Katherine Waterston and Sebastian Stan all making minor but memorable appearances. And while Adam Driver and Channing Tatum both give impressive performances, the standout is an almost unrecognisable Daniel Craig playing blue-collar criminal Joe Bang. An explosions expert sporting a heavy southern accent and bright blonde hair, he's an anti-glam version of Bond if you will. It's Craig's impeccable comedic timing that will make you wish the Bond films would let him exercise his comedic chops a little bit more.

It's only in the last act that the film starts to feel a little played out. The introduction of Hillary Swank as a Special Agent in the last 20 minutes of the film feels a little rushed and ultimately doesn't really go anywhere. Instead, the story continues through a number of false endings, not entirely sure when to bring down the curtain.

Overall, as the first feature to draw Soderbergh out of semi-retirement, Logan Lucky is clearly something he wanted to make and his passion comes through in the final product. Produced entirely on his own and without studio interference, Logan Lucky inverts the glamour and opulence of the Ocean's trilogy without loosing the series' trademark quirks and high entertainment value. If Logan Lucky is intended to act as sort of push-back of the Hollywood system and studio meddling, then Soderbergh has succeeded at both proving a point and making you laugh while doing it.
54 out of 96 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Utter garbage, packaged by faux-director Soderbergh as a flaccid Coen Brothers ripoff - You Have Been Warned
mikerosslaw2 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Imagine taking a room full of junior high school kids and asking them to dream up a script for a heist movie. Guaranteed, whatever the kids came up with would be better than this nonsensical dud. If the title "Logan Lucky" doesn't make any sense to you, then you've gotten the gist of pic in a nutshell.

The genius of the Coen Brother's inimitable style is unsuccessfully plundered by the blundering "retired" director Steven Soderbergh. Like his previous forgettable "Oceans" pics, Soderbergh obliterates any chance of an engaging story by reducing his films to nothing more than contrived, distracting showcases of celebrities-du-jour. This tricky formula only worked once, with Sinatra's 1960 version of "Ocean's Eleven," but only because The Chairman of the Board and his notorious Las Vegas "Rat Pack" were starring. Soderbergh's impotent 2001 reboot starred pampered, effete, Hollywood pretty boys like George Clooney and Brad Pitt, who exuded none of the real street-smart savvy and tough guy personas of Sinatra's inner circle. Soderbergh compounded his felonious ripoff of the Sinatra classic by inflicting two more tiresome "Oceans" sequels on the viewing public. While directing has certainly never been Soderbergh's forte, neither is originality.

Englishman Daniel Craig, the most flaccid and unappealing actor to ever play James Bond, has forever crippled whatever suave image he thought he might have had playing Bond with his cringe-worthy, bleached-haired bit part as a Southern hick. Craig must have once gotten a near-lethal dose of facial botox, since his catatonic lack of facial expression matches his Code-Blue performance in pic as a more-than-slightly-deranged prison inmate, sprung "temporarily" (if you can believe this) to assist in the heist of a NASCAR race.

Channing Tatum and Adam Driver (cast supposedly as brothers, something that could only happen in real life if their mother had lived near some sort of Chernobyl-level radiation at the time of their conception) are played as down-on-their-luck veterans, yet another smarmy cliché and derogatory ripoff of real vets. These two cretins, who together couldn't plan so much as a push-up, are the big masterminds of the race heist.

We saw pic at the Drive-In, the perfect venue for such insufferable dreck, since you can yak out loud with your companions, scarf handfuls of popcorn with gusto, swill beer that you've smuggled in, walk your dog, let your kids play on the swings, and generally act like you're at home watching TV. Quality story-telling and engaging entertainment are not all that necessary to enjoy the night out at bargain admission prices ($5.00 per car on family night). But this P.O.S. was so bad, so utterly bereft of the slightest scintilla of entertainment, that we left about three-quarters of the way through pic.

Summer films are usually aimed at a less-than-sophisticated demographic. But pic's exploitation of the collective imbecility of its obvious target audience demonstrates yet again how vacuous and staggeringly tasteless and banal the puerile Hollyweird suits are who green-lighted this hot, steaming, nut-filled pile of dog feces.
16 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews