Any particular thoughts on the John Wick film, other than it being awesome of course?

opinions-about-tiaras:

racefortheironthrone:

opinions-about-tiaras:

John Wick is a really weird film, isn’t it?

Like… I really love it. It’s the best thing Reeves has made since The Devil’s Advocate. (I’m an aficionado of devil movies and Devil’s Advocate is criminally underrated. It somehow manages to be a southern gothic film that’s almost entirely set in NYC. I digress tho.) 

But I can’t quite ever explain to people why I love John Wick. Because every time I try I get three sentences in and realize “I’m basically describing every single other revenge film starring a white dude with a dead wife ever made, even if this one doesn’t involve revenge BECAUSE of the dead wife.” I mean, it’s beautifully shot, and wonderfully acted, but aside from that it doesn’t sound like anything special. And I can’t articulate why I think it’s a very good movie. I just know that I think it is one.

I’m not sure it needed a sequel, tho. And the way the sequel is being marketed really gives me pause. The first one was… very restrained in many ways, it used a light touch. I’m very worried that they’ll think they needed to go bigger.

Eh. A great action movie doesn’t have to have a good story. The Raid: Redemption’s story is paper-thin, but the setting is so clearly established and the action is so amazingly done that it’s great anyway. 

Indeed, I would argue there’s a lot of great action movies which are great because the story is so simple: the Seven Samurai/the Magnificent Seven, Die Hard, Mad Max: Fury Road, etc.

And I probably should have said that John Wick is great because the combat choreography is really well done in a very uncommon super-stripped down fashion. 

Indeed, I would argue there’s a lot of great action movies which are
great because the story is so simple: the Seven Samurai/the Magnificent
Seven, Die Hard, Mad Max: Fury Road, etc. 

There’s a difference between simple and hackneyed, tho. I wouldn’t call Wick hackneyed; indeed, the movie goes to a lot of trouble to do a small but interesting bit of subversion in Act I, because John Wick is actually coping with the death of his wife in a semi-healthy way; she doesn’t exist as a prop to justify a high body count.

But it’s hard to explain that to people, or at least I’ve found it to be.

racefortheironthrone:

Pay attention to the Greek mythology references. 

And I probably should have said that John Wick is great because the
combat choreography is really well done in a very uncommon
super-stripped down fashion. 

That’s a large part of what drew me to it, yeah. I also like the lighting, which manages to be very subdued without being massively washed out like every other movie that wants to go for a subdued look ends up looking like these days.

They also do a lot of little touches, small moments of humor or absurdity that just work and help mix up the tension a little bit without undercutting the tone. Dean Winters trying to shoot at Reeves and doing his Dennis-from-30-Rock laugh of sheer, childlike joy because shooting a gun is awesome cracks me up every time.

Good point about simple and hackneyed, although, man, it’s hard to figure out what’s one and what’s the other. Is it about how often it’s been done, or is it about simplicity vs. over-egging the pudding, or is it skill of execution? 

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.