Par kluseba le 17 Juin 2015 à 17:31
On an objective level, both critics and fans don't seem to know what a good movie is anymore. "Mad Max: Fury Road" may be filled with nearly two hours of breathtaking non-stop action sequences and a couple of great special effects, settings or locations and some solid camera and light techniques in the few calmer moments.
The problem is that there is literally nothing more than this in this reboot of another legendary series. There are no real intrigues going on and creativity is literally non- existent. There are almost no dialogues and the few that are there are quite weak. There are no surprising elements or twists and therefor no tension whatsoever in the whole flick. The plot is so shallow that even the increasingly bad "Fast and Furious" feel like intellectual masterpieces if compared to this laughable excuse of a story.
One gets introduced to an epic number of characters but none of them has any real depth. The biggest problem is the uncharismatic main actor Tom Hardy and his shallow character that doesn't create any antipathy or sympathy among viewers. I rarely cared less about a leading character in any movie than here. Another problem are the numerous villains that aren't fleshed out either. It feels as if the characters of the bad guys were randomly borrowed from some of the trashiest action flicks of the seventies and eighties. Sometimes, they appear pretty much out of nowhere and die as randomly a few minutes later. The only actress who did a decent job and managed to add some depth to its character is Academy Award winner Charlize Theron. I feel sad for her to be acting in such a disastrous movie.
Even two hours of non-stop action end up feeling boring and stretched if there are no truly stunning scenes or any degree of virtuosity in the high amount of exaggerated explosions and endless gunfights. Even as a homage to the original series or a worthless movie to switch your brains off and have some fun, this movie has nearly no merits. Apart of the few objective positive elements which are basically due to the impertinent budget and some obvious inspirations from the original cult movies and which barely justify my extremely generous rating, this film is extremely overrated and not recommendable for anyone.
Par kluseba le 2 Novembre 2014 à 19:15
"John Wick" is another fast-paced and graphic revenge movie with some entertaining action and black humour, a fitting soundtrack and the usual stereotypical characters from the Russian mafia. When it comes to gripping revenge flicks, you should rather watch South Korean movies like the intense "The Man from Nowhere" which is twice as good as this film, "I Saw the Devil" which is probably one of the most brutal movies ever made, the emotionally heart-breaking "Blood Island", as well as the philosophical trilogy around "Sympathy for Mister Vengeance", "Oldboy" and "Lady Vengeance" if you are looking for some originality, depth and character development. "John Wick" is only a hollow entertainment for genre fans. If I wasn't a fan of this kind of movies, my rating would be much lower than it is.
The story is simple. John Wick was a hit-man working for the organized crime in New York City. He retired from his job and started a new life when he met the love of his life. Roughly four years later, John Wick loses his wife to cancer. He receives a posthumous gift from her in form of a puppy with a letter from his wife saying that she is gone and that John Wick should cope with her demise by loving the dog. Coincidentally, he encounters the son of his old boss who doesn't know him. The young Russian mafioso wants to purchase John Wick's vintage '69 Mustang but the grieving man refuses. A few hours later, the Russian mafioso breaks into John Wick's house without any problems as there seems to be no alarm system at all. With a few friends, the young criminal kills John Wick's beloved puppy, steals his car and is bright enough to take off his hood to show his face so John Wick surely knows who he is. The victim survives and goes on to kill around eighty criminals in the next ninety minutes of the movie. Of course, killing the naive culprit is not enough, he also kills his partners, colleagues, bodyguards, his old boss and a few guys in a church. In the end, everybody but John Wick is dead and he goes to the next veterinary hospital, walks off with a new dog and goes home as if nothing ever happened.
This story is so bad that it could have been written by a twelve-year old. First of all, there are too many coincidences concerning the encounter with the Russian criminals who want to steel John Wick's car. In the entire movie, everybody is talking about John Wick's incredible reputation and everybody knows him wherever he goes but the son of the most influent criminal is the only one who has never heard of him. It's not credible that a smart hit-man doesn't have any alarm system to protect his home. One can understand that the killing of the puppy his wife gave to him really hurts John Wick but taking this event to justify eighty or more murders is not credible at all. In the entire movie, there is no police or anything despite all the shootings in downtown New York City. All of John Wick's enemies are extremely stupid, unexperienced and wooden. Even thirty men in one building can't manage to fight him. I could go on for hours as this movie is filled with so many coincidences, plot holes and unrealistic scenes that it's amusing. If you tell me know that the story doesn't matter in a revenge action movie, just watch any of the movies mentioned in the introduction that prove that even the grisliest revenge thriller can have some depth. Even "The Raid" franchise is more realistic and has better plots. "John Wick" rather feels like a simplistic ego-shooter for video game consoles than an actual movie. I must though admit that the last Splinter Cell games had better story lines than this film.
Another thing that feels out of place is the fact that fifty-year old Keanu Reeves is playing the unbeatable hit-man. The fighting scenes are somewhat wooden but he still manages to fight off his enemies because their acting is even slower. On the other side, Keanu Reeves also has a certain charisma to fit this role. Fifty-nine year old Willem Dafoe as veteran hit-man who has to kill John Wick is also a questionable choice in my opinion. Still, he is a respectable actor and has charisma. The most annoying thing is the fact that the evil guys are Russians again but that they are portrayed by actors from all around the world like England, Sweden and even Switzerland - except Russia. One can feel that these are wannabe Hollywood Russians and not real Russians.
You may now ask yourself why I still gave a favourable rating to this flick. It's actually simple. This movie never gets boring. The action scenes are sometimes wooden but most of them are just shootings so it doesn't really matter. These scenes are well directed and include no annoying shaky cameras or overloaded special effects. The settings of the movie are well chosen and vary from dirty chop shops over elegant bath houses to Orthodox churches. There are a few memorable lines in this film as in many other action movies. Some graphic content is related to some dark and dry humour which made the whole thing easier to digest. I actually liked this combination of contradictory extremes and had to laugh quite a few times during the movie. The soundtrack of the movie is also enjoyable and fitting. For genre fans, there are enough entertaining and well-executed elements to enjoy this movie despite its obvious flaws.
If you are looking for some fast-paced and superficial entertainment to switch your brains off, you will like "John Wick". If you are actually looking for a good movie that has more to offer than stylish violence, go for the movies mentioned in the introduction.
Par kluseba le 26 Août 2014 à 06:17
The third part of The Expandables is another explosive action movie with interesting cameo appearances by cult actors such as Harrison Ford, Jet Li and Arnold Schwarzenegger and a bunch of old action heroes like Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes and Mel Gibson as well as a younger generation of action stars such as Kellan Lutz, Victor Ortiz and Ronda Rousey.
The most interesting actors in the movie are Antonio Banderas who plays the clown and comes around with a few amusing slapstick gags, Wesley Snipes who plays in a very emotional and almost schizophrenic manner where he quickly turns from being ridiculous to menacing and back again and Mel Gibson who portrays a clever, cold-hearted and unpredictable villain.
Some other actors have less screen time than usual and can't always convince. I would have liked to see more of Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren and Jason Statham. Instead, the new movie introduces a younger team of Expandables but these new actors like Kelsey Grammar, Kellan Lutz, Victor Ortiz and Ronda Rousey simply don't have the charisma and talent of the old generation and feel rather exchangeable. The idea to reinvent the franchise and feature a younger cast was promising but the final result is below expectations. There are far more charismatic action stars like the younger John Cena, Tony Jaa, Li Bingbing and Iko Uwais or even the older Josh Brolin, Mark Dacascos, Liam Neeson and Keanu Reeves for example but these issues have already been discussed before.
The story of this movie isn't as generic as the one of the first movie but not as diversified and dramatic as the plot of the second movie. I feel that the story is overall too similar to the second film who remains the best of the franchise to really come close to it. The Expandables 3 is still an entertaining action blockbuster but clearly the weakest of the three movies.
On the positive side, the locations in the movie have become more exotic and beautiful and take place in different parts of the United States of America, Russia and Somalia among others. The setting, camera, sound and special effects are top notch. On the negative side, I'm aware of the fact that this movie isn't supposed to be realistic at all but some scenes felt so forced and unreal that it was unintentionally hilarious like the part when the motorboat in the port of Mogadishu managed to perfectly jump upon the back of a driving truck. This wasn't the case in the first two instalments in my opinion.
In the end, this is a good movie if you feel like switching your brains off, getting a fast-paced entertainment and seeing many famous actors in the same movie. While the film is still solid, it's definitely the weakest release of the franchise and the seven out of ten points I'm giving here are maybe a little bit generous. Still, action movie fans can't obviously get around this movie as there are way too many gripping action sequences and cool actors around.
Par kluseba le 7 Mars 2014 à 06:55
You can take this movie from two different sides.
As somebody who is very much interested in history and geography and has studied both for many years, this movie is obviously full of mistakes and wrong stereotypes. It is almost as inaccurate as the "Spartacus" series. And this is never an original movie. We have all watched movies with very similar story lines about the evil Romans who want to control everything, the poor gladiators who stand up against them and the forbidden love between a rich young woman and a foreign slave. I can understand why many people are rating this film down. If you really want to watch a sophisticated movie about that time, go for the classic "Ben- Hur".
What I think is strange is that all these stereotypes were highly predictable from the trailers only. I am asking myself why people even went to watch this movie if they were going to hate it for the reasons mentioned above. Some people just want to bash a movie and seem to have a very sad life if they waste their time watching movie they dislike so much.
I went to watch the movie for something different. I wanted to watch a colourful movie with impressive sets and costumes and stunning 3D effects of an exploding volcano. I was eager to watch a fast pace flick with a lot of fighting scenes, some tension here and there and maybe a few love scenes with beautiful actresses. And I exactly got that.
In addition to this, the acting was just good enough and included a few interesting characters. I really liked Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje and Jessica Lucas in this film even though they played stereotypical characters and could have had more screening time. If you are going to watch this movie for Carrie-Anne Moss or Kiefer Sutherland, please do not. They have been much better in other movies in the past.
In the end, it all depends on you. If you want to watch an original and profound movie and learn something about the Roman Empire, just forget it. If you want to watch an effect ridden action adventure, you are going to like this. It is not the movie of the year but I surely had a great time watching it.
Par kluseba le 5 Mars 2014 à 22:26
"Non-Stop" is a solid action-thriller with the extraordinary lead actor Liam Neeson. I watched this movie because of him and even though he doesn't beat his best performances, Liam Neeson is absolutely convincing as cold-hearted human wreck and sorrow-ridden air Marshall. It's sad that his character isn't more developed in this movie as we never get to know whom he was talking to on the telephone in the beginning for example.
The story itself is nothing new but could have been more convincing. The movie starts in a great way when the alcoholic chain smoking air Marshall gets text messages via a secure network on a flight from New York City to London, England. An unknown criminal announces that every twenty minutes a passenger will die if the air Marshall won't send 150 million dollars to an untraceable Swiss bank account.
After an initial suspense, the story gets a little bit ridiculous when the first victims die. The first murder could have never been planned that way by the terrorists. The second murder isn't well explained either and even the third murder feels random even though it makes more sense than the first two. These are not the only plot holes in here. At that point, the story is running in circles, though. People are dying every twenty minutes, all characters are judging too quickly and the air Marshall loses control all the time. After a promising start, one just waits for something spectacular to happen but there is nothing more to this.
Of course, we will get the so-called twist in the end and know who is behind the hijackings and killings. The solution though feels half- hearted and isn't really credible. It somehow doesn't make much sense to me. For me, this moment was a little letdown and the twist is (almost) more of a deus ex machina thing than anything out-thought.
What else is there to say? Liam Neeson's acting is good and some secondary actors are doing a solid job as well but the characters represent too many stereotypes. It's the same for the story that feels as if one had already watched a similar movie before.
The action scenes, special effects and the soundtrack are well done. The numerous text messages on screen get quite annoying and how could anyone write that fast as it's the case in the movie anyway?
In the end, fans of Liam Neeson should watch this movie without a doubt. Anyone else will get a tension filled action-thriller without any big surprises. It's an entertaining movie to watch but also the kind of film that you will have forgotten in a few months. It's nothing truly impressive but still a good average effort. Instead of showing more or less convincing Hollywood cinema, I'm asking myself why the North American and European cinemas are not showing us more memorable and poignant films from Asia, Europe or South America.
I was hesitating between six and seven points for this movie. The film is not overtly original but it's entertaining and it has Liam Neeson in it. Still, I was expecting more than this and that's why I went for the lower rating. Actually, 6,5 out of ten points would have been the perfect rating for me.
Suivre le flux RSS des articles de cette rubrique
Suivre le flux RSS des commentaires de cette rubrique