John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
No user info supplied.
I gave this film a thumbs up, only because the acting wasn't too bad, and I was able to view it to the end. However, it did not convince me that Emilia Clarke, is a better actress than I initially thought she was. For me, her portrayal of The Mother of Dragons in Game of Thrones. Was totally underwhelming, and lacked any of the versatility that other cast members in the series showed. As far as this film is concerned. I think that a viewer could multi-task, take short naps or whatever, and not really miss anything. I would suggest, watching the beginning, the middle and the end. Nothing really happens between those points. Lastly, Ms. Clarke did use the opportunity, to show that she really has an attractive nude body.
I watched this movie, because I was in the mood for some military action adventure. I wasn't disappointed. Mr. Butler, the star of the film, has become known for his "over the top" movies like "Olympus has fallen", etc. Movies that I find lack logic and good acting. However, I found Hunter killer, to be better than other Butler projects. I enjoyed the plot, the acting by some veteran actors like Michael Nyqvist, and Toby Stephens, was good, along with good cinematography, special effects, and CGI. There was one part, that I found unexpectedly kind of touching.
The first twelve minutes of this movie is a real "eye-roller". Which made me wonder how long I could watch it. Aquaman's parents would be prime examples of a mismatched couple, in real life. When I saw the wooden acting, I should have realized that "mom". Was played by Nicole Kidman, who is one of my least favorite actresses. Forget about the "actor" who plays early "dad", though he's a good match for the wooden Kidman. I was able to sit through the whole movie, and it isn't terrible. However, a 2 hour and 27 minute running time?? They could have cut back on the CGI battle scenes, without effecting the film. I know we aren't suppose to apply any real world, expectations in superhero movies. But the idea, that a really advanced undersea civilization would stand for Humans, turning their environment into a sewer. Is beyond ridiculous. They have the power to beach giant aircraft carriers, for goodness sake. Aquaman, couldn't be anymore PG, with a save the environment message, if it tried.
I find it interesting, that this film was categorized as a "black comedy". Even the one or two advertisement clips for the film. Made it look somewhat like a comedy. I was surprised however, when viewing the film. Which to my mind, has few, if any comedic scenes. This actually is a rather dark portrayal of homosexual triangle, and power struggle. The awards the film has been nominated for, are deserved. The acting, script, direction, plot, and production values. Are all worthy of the praise the film has received. After viewing the film. I frankly was a little depressed, because of the unexpected dark theme of the plot. Lastly, I don't understand why production companies, feel it is necessary, to use people or events from history. To base their productions on, if they don't intend their stories to be somewhat factual. Who ever heard of Queen Ann, other than students of History? If the average person never heard of her. Why not just create an fictional story about a fictional person, set in a historical time period? Why pick on "poor Ann", to tell a story that has very little factual background? The Entertainment production companies, are quick to point out, that they indicate somewhere. That a production is not based on fact, and is not a documentary. In my view, that is like them saying, "Yeah, we left a running car with the keys in the ignition. Leaving a small sign in the window. Saying that no one that doesn't know how to drive. Should try to drive the car." What they choose to ignore. Is that since the beginning of film. People have believed what was presented to them on screen. Especially, if they have no knowledge of the base material. They feel informed by what they see in the film. The only possible upside, to a certain degree. Is that a film, may encourage people to do some investigating on their own. To see what the real facts are. I did a little research on Queen Ann, out of curiosity, but I seriously doubt that many people would do the same.
I passed on Jupiter Ascending when it first became available on disk and streaming. I was going on the fact, that it got so many negative reviews. Both from professional critics, and apparently from movie goers. Recently, when reading a newsletter hosted by a company that announces new streaming content. I read a review by a critic, who suggested ignoring the negative things said about this movie. She explained the reasons that she thought, that it was a fairly good movie. Having nothing to lose, except time. I watched it, and think the CGI, plot, and acting were, as good as any of the recent "Superhero" movies. I'm not sure where all of the "hate" came from. I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the fact that Mila Kunis was the female lead, and known for her original role, in a popular TV series. Her acting was okay, as was the rest of the cast.