MovieChat Forums > MavKilledGoose
avatar

MavKilledGoose (649)


Posts


Zahn's Prophetic Impression... Self-Sacrifce, Suffering, Jordan Peterson, and Olivia Wilde -- A Review Self-Indulgent Nonsense My Review... Censored Streaming Versions... The Least Interesting Mission: Impossible Cancel Culture in Action... 4.6 on IMDb -- Does this suck? Actors Play Their Screen Personas, No Stakes... Depp's (alleged) Text Messages View all posts >


Replies


Asian female reporter. Woman as the top govt. official. White man betrays brother. Tough talking Latina. Female pilot. I do appreciate how progressive some right-wingers are these days. This should be one-and-done. Agreed. At least with Bourne, as far as I recall, the streaky, jumbled flashbacks contained clues that the viewer would try to piece together. They were also clipped/quick. Narratively, this is more compelling when the premise assassin-with-amnesia. We want to find out what happened. These flashbacks were one-note: I-love-and-miss-my-dead-wife-and-daughter. We already know that; instead we want to know who else is involved in the conspiracy and how they're going down. It does reveal something of his character that he doesn't hit her with it. I thought this was one of the more interesting choices in an otherwise dull movie. He had chastised the child earlier, and overruled her when it came to venturing out. Could she have defeated the guys in combat? No. Not even the Reacher described in the books could have done it. The four-against-one thing is pure fantasy, but being strong and secure enough to take on her half-justified stream of abuse speaks to a strong, silent type. Moreover, since the audience knows what went down, it's boring to have him faithfully recount what happened. It did ~$218m worldwide. It performed relatively poorly in the domestic market ($80m), but that was due in part to a studio delay of the premiere and advertising because of the Sandy Hook shooting. Since it was relatively well-made, it performed reasonably well in the post-theatrical market. Box Office Mojo reports the budget was $60m, so a sequel made sense. The sequel, however, sucked, and a franchise is only as good as the last movie. Except the Foster character came back without issue. You do not know how to reason or argue. What you've produced here is a series of nonsequiturs. Do I need to pull them apart for you? Getting the financing for any movie is a struggle, even for Martin Scorcese. Working with the same writer is not an indicator of power. If you want to say politics drives the film, then cite actual things that happen in the film. It's not difficult to watch a movie and notice a gratuitously political angle that does not develop the story. If a movie IS gratuitously political, then I don't need to know who directed or financed it because I can point to things on the screen. You seem unable to do that instead resigning yourself to a version of the genetic fallacy. This sort of comment also says more about your own motives and politics. It's not even clear you've seen the movie. Film is a collaborative medium. Olivia Wilde did not write the story. She did not put up the money to create this commercial product. A second-time director is not given free rein. I thought he was a producer. "He orders you an Uber. You tell him about some recent sexual-assault accusations leveled at the company's drivers, so he tells you he's requesting 'Do not rape' service..." C'mon, that's funny. View all replies >