Not a great movie. Pretty generic spy-thriller plot. Bad performances outside the leads, and the leads weren’t great with the exception with a corny over the top Chris Evans performance. Action scenes were too tightly show and/or had pretty bad CGI.
Like, it’s alright movie to get drunk and throw on, but $200M? Jesus.
I liked it a little more than you did. Plotwise, it is indeed a fairly trope-y “assassin with an honor code” situation, so nothing new there. If you don’t like shoot-em-up action movies, you won’t like this as it doesn’t bring anything new. In fact, that’s my biggest complaint - it’s highly derivative.
That said, the action and cinematography are solid and I actually enjoyed pretty much all of the performances. Chris Evans is indeed over the top as the villain, but it wasn’t too over the top for me, and he was having so much fun with it, that I enjoyed it along with him. Ryan Gosling displayed a sangfroid and world-weariness that was appropriate and a good contrast to Evans. Rege-Jean Page was definitely hate-able. Alfre Woodard has an extremely trope-y appearance, but she pulls it off with style anyway. And I’d watch Ana de Armas sit on the couch for two hours and enjoy it.
This is what Mrs. solost and I did last night, had a couple drinks and watched The Gray Man. Agreed that it was an OK popcorn watch, but very derivative and tropey. Chris Evans did seem like he was having a great time chewing scenery.
On the matter of Netflix spending $200 mil on this movie, I understand their strategy to create their own content in order to stay viable with the continuing balkanization of streaming services. But is spending hundreds of millions making movies a good way to keep or increase their subscriber base? A movie is a one time watch. I know some people rewatch movies they really enjoy, but most people can just borrow a Netflix password or use a free trial to watch and move on.
I’m thinking Netflix should focus on developing more series, and try to keep repeating the buzz and success of Stranger Things, or House of Cards back in the day. Seems like that would keep their subscriber base more sticky and be a better return on their investment. They probably didn’t spend anywhere near 200 mil on the first couple seasons of Stranger Things.
I’ve wondered if they’re doing it as a bargaining chip: Netflix will offer some dollar amount for the rights to stream this or that movie or movie franchise, and could get told no, that seems low; we figure you want this property a lot more than you’re letting on, because we figure you badly need buzzworthy streaming content, and so here’s our counteroffer — but these would let Netflix reply, no, we’re not bluffing; if you try to play hardball, we’re perfectly willing to keep putting out our own films; we’d prefer to add yours to our library, but the buzz we get from every big-stars-and-big-budget flick we slap together should help make clear to you exactly how slight that preference is.
Watched this, was a bit disappointed after a fairly positive review on AVClub.
It wasn’t quite obviously-silly-self-aware-fun to switch into “just go along for the ride” fun, but also not serious enough to actually have pathos or depth. Chris Evans chewing scenery was definitely the high point. Not a terrible movie, but totally forgettable.
A few comments:
-At the beginning, he first meets the main woman (did she ever have a name?) and she gives him… a water pistol? Which, as far as I can tell, he never uses. Was I missing something?
-So sick of the stupid idea of “oh, yes, I was able to read and view all the data from this drive, but not copy it”. So, for fuck’s sake, point a god damn phone at the screen! Jesus. (Or one of a zillion other very very feasible solutions). Absolutely no reason that character wouldn’t/couldn’t have just gone public with it the moment she decrypted it
-The whole bit at the castle at the end was noticeably dumber than the rest, from the ludicrous plot armor to the quite out of character “don’t shoot him, I need to punch him to death myself” decision
-Also, if you’re going to make a movie this silly, you can’t really have a morally ambiguous ending where the bad guys get away with it. Don’t pretend this is Breaking Bad
How about if I do like shoot em up action movies, but non-derivative ones?
I love shoot em up movies. I wouldn’t watch this unless you had nothing else to do. I’d give it like a C-.
I believe there was a RFID tag in the handle that he used to open a door. Maybe it’s less conspicuous to pass a water pistol than a badge?
This exactly. Granted, creating a Stranger Things is as challenging as scripting a movie that people want to watch multiple times. That list of movies for me is in single digits for me, same for TV shows.
ETA: Movie sequels count as the original. So James Bond fills a single position.
I saw “The Gray Man” on Netflix last night, and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Besides several good action scenes, it had a good story line to it. Ryan Gosling did a good job with the lead role, and there were several good supporting actors as well.
Nvm. …
I liked the action scenes, thought it was filmed well, and enjoyed the occasional drone footage, but the story was pretty meh. Throwing the kid storyline in halfway through the movie didn’t seem to serve much of a purpose.
It was Ok.
But The Gray Man seems to be another example of Netflix going all-in on creating expensive generic action movies with huge stars (usually a Ryan or Chris) playing the same character they play in every film. Like we’ve all seen the “unstoppable ‘disavowed’ assassin who ‘doesn’t exist’ has to retrieve ‘the files’ and save the little girl he becomes attached to while being chased by rogue elements of the intelligence community” before.
Maybe Netflix can do a film with Ryan Reynolds and Ryan Gosling being glib to each other for 90 minutes?
I usually like popcorn action films but I’m finding this one hard to persevere through. It’s probably Ryan Gosling; I just find him extremely dull on the screen, like a black hole for charisma (a grey hole?).