Rented on Prime. I had resisted watching because of the extreme violence. I finally gave it a chance tonight. There were several interesting characters. Winston the hotel manager is very intriguing. Wick is fairly stereotypical. Charles Bronson played similar characters 40 years ago.
The lack of story was expected. There’s a couple scenes that setup the next gunfight. Then reset with another scene that sets up another gunfight.
It bothered me in Wicks 2 that the intended target commits suicide. Wicks could have walked out without getting directly blamed by the crime lords. Instead he shoots a woman that’s already dying. Pretty stupid.
The movies are entertaining in a deeply disturbing way. You have to totally buy into the silliness and ludicrous gunfights. It helps that they inject some humor into the killing There’s very little blood, even when Wick shoots people in the head at close range. He doesn’t get splattered. The funniest premise is watching Wick take on a army of killers armed with a 7 shot gun. He proceeds to shoot people, run out of ammo, and take a new clip from a dead dude. Rinse and repeat. It’s so over the top and silly.
I probably will skip 3 & 4. It’s just too predictable a premise. The guy will have an International bounty on his head. Every assassin in the world after him. Of course the entire movie will involve chasing Wick and extended gun battles. It’s too far fetched even for a $3 rental.
Maybe they are worth watching on a very dull night. I’ll think about it.
For Wick 1 abd 2 I give a C+ rating for the skillful stunt work.
Hmm, I like Halle Berry. Rentals are pretty cheap. I’ll go ahead and finish the series and watch 3 and 4.
The stunt work in the Wick films is exceptional. @iamatractorboy pointed out the cinematography and I agree. 2 had very nicely shot exterior scenes. It’s also a relief to see extended shots of scenes with a dozen jump cuts. Thank goodness directors are returning to tracking shots.
I would have loved these movies when I was much younger. I always enjoyed Bronson and Eastwood’s action thrillers. I still see the entertainment value in extreme action films. I appreciate the production and stunts more now.
Personally I found Wick 3 rather boring. I even did a re-watch to see if I found it less boring, and was still barely entertained. Wick 4 though, I found very entertaining. It has Donnie Yen and Hiroyuki Sanada as well as other actors that stand out throughout. Wick 3 does have one event that explains one plot point in Wick 4, but I do not know if it is worth viewing just for that. YMMV
For me, the John Wick movies are single viewing. been there, done that, got the T-shirt
That may change after I’ve seen the entire series and understand the full story arc. .
I’d have to rent them again. That’s the disadvantage of Prime. It’s hard to predict whether it’s worth paying $12 to $14 to own or rent for $3 to $4.
I think Wick 2 would have been better if the nude woman had stood facing Wick and said you don’t really don’t want to kill me?
It would be an interesting dilemma for John. Murdering an obviously vulnerable woman would be too extreme even for him. Especially since he’s grieving his deceased wife.
Of course she had to die. That could happen in a later scene.
I do agree it was a bit overlong at some points, though the location shooting (a little pun intended heh), humor and the portrayal of the various characters, made up for it.
Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget: Got about 15 minutes into the film and realized I was bored. The loss of Mel Gibson (understandable, I suppose) and Julia Sawalha as voice actors (replaced by Zachary Levi and Thandiwe Newton) just didn’t work for me, and the usual Aardman snappy banter and clever Easter eggs were at best tepid and at most missing. The plot instigation was just plopped down like “Welp, here’s the new source of drama and peril, let’s just get on with it” and…anyway, I just stopped caring. If it picks up later, let me know.
Meet The Parents (2000). When this came out I thought it looked unfunny, when people referenced it, it sounded unfunny, and when Inna and I watched it last night… it was largely unfunny. There were some chuckles, so not entirely humorless, but really… this made $300 million?
We watched Dawn of the Nugget last night and I largely agree; although I thought it worth watching, it was not a patch on some of Aardman’s best work.
I think the most interesting thing was learning via IMDB trivia that the villainous penguin from The Wrong Trousers (a complete masterpiece in my opinion) appears in the final shot of the film. We rewound back through the credits and sure enough there he is, lurking in the background, then walking off just before the fade out.
I found the sequel ‘Meet the Fockers’ dumber yet, but not without some chuckle-worthy moments. ( and I’m not referring to the annoying overuse of the baby saying “ass-hoooole” )
Society of the Snow on Netflix. Despite offering no new take on the oft-told tale of the Uruguayan plane crash in the Andes, this film somehow made the cut for a Best International Film Oscar nom. There was literally nothing new in this film that I didn’t already know from Alive or the (rather mediocre) 1993 film based on it.
I was hoping they would explore some of the themes commented on in a recent episode of Last Podcast on the Left. Like how a miracle of survival like that could only be accomplished by a group that trained as a team, and young and naive enough to believe they could actually get themselves out of such a hopeless situation. That podcast was a lot more engaging than this most recent dramatization.
ETA: Adding extra content because I accidentally made the same post in another thread and the board don’t like that.
I worked at a drugstore near a movie theater when it came out, and so many college students came in saying, “OMG, you have to see Meet the Parents, it is soooooo funny!” that I developed a mental block against it and have never seen it to this day.
Well, if classic Aardman action shenanigans and Rube Goldberg machinery, along with very watchable villains, count as “picking up”, I think you might want to give it another chance. But yeah, it does exhibit a certain degree of sequel-itis.
On another note, haven’t any of you film buffs got anything to say about The Book of Clarence? I thought it looked really interesting but missed it at my local theater, and have not been able to decide whether I should make a special effort to seek it out. Input, please! thx
And, yes, imdb ratings are really not helpful for me. They’re typically a point or two lower on movies I like. I figure it’s a lot of kids flooding the ratings, because movies popular with 20-somethings seem to get the highest ratings. Lots of car chases and explosions and little depth or characterization.
It’s so over the top and silly.
Rentals are pretty cheap. I’ll go ahead and finish the series and watch 3 and 4.
