Film Review: John Wick

If it's one thing action movies can teach us, it's that you don't mess with people who have nothing left to lose. John Wick hinges on the simple premise of a retired hitman who plows through the Russian mafia and leaves a mile-long body trail, all because they killed his puppy. And stole his ride. Somebody has to pay!

As silly this may sound, the film plays it all with a straight face, and it works because there is a good amount of heart to the setup. In the opening scenes, we see that this is more than the story of a man, his car, and his dog; it's the story of a loss and betrayal. Once the appropriate pathos is established, John Wick rises as the tough and skilled action hero we can root for. It doesn't take long for the butt-kicking to commence, but once it does, it's densely-packed, fast-paced, relentlessly-brutal, and very well-executed. Whether shooting, punching, stabbing, or running bad guys over, it is quite a rush to watch Wick descend into the criminal underworld and find payback.

As exciting and stylish as the film is, what really keeps it from falling into mediocrity is the title character. The film successfully evokes sympathy for Wick - the man who lost his wife, before losing everything else - and it provides a solid reasoning for why we should care about whether or not Wick succeeds. As the film goes on, Wick's journey takes him through a bizarre criminal world with its own set of rules, codes, and even currency. It turns out that it's a world Wick is already familiar with, and he has a history with most of the minor characters that pop up. Thus, the film unearths stark themes of how the past, present, and future are entwined.

This film is well-shot, with great-looking photography and editing. It is especially refreshing that the action scenes are solid and steady, with no fast-cutting or camera shake. I also think the color schemes and nighttime cityscapes lend the film a dark and grimy type of neo-noir appeal. Acting is fine for what it is; you may not think much of Keanu Reeves, but this film is proof that the man can act. His portrayal of John Wick is quite spot-on. And he can kick a lot of butt very impressively. Writing is not the best, but it gets the job done. This production has pretty good-looking sets, props, and costumes. Music choices, and the music score, feature really heavy beats and hard rock cues, and I found it awesome that way.

John Wick, much like A Bittersweet Life, is a dark crime movie with lots of action, but also a lot of emotional backing behind its characters. It's a simple story that's told well and features plenty of satisfying setpieces. Recommended for at least one viewing.

4/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)

Book Review: Hannibal (Thomas Harris)

Some years after Silence of the Lambs, Thomas Harris picks up on the trail of Hannibal Lecter in this follow-up thriller.  Throughout the previous books, Hannibal stood out as one of the most ominous and menacing characters in crime fiction, and the book Hannibal finally sees the character totally unchained, free from the confines of prison, and above reproach of all the forces that try to capture him again.

Like the other books in the series, Hannibal is a pretty breezy read.  Chapters are short, there's plenty of action and suspense to keep the pages turning.  Dialogue is mostly interesting, and the characters have enough charm to maintain interest.  The prose is easily digestible, and the story's not too hard to follow at all.

That being said, it is a rather odd story.  It's not even much of a mystery novel; it's more of a revenge thriller with multiple plots and conspiracies laid over each other, all of which are tied together and contribute to a pretty weird climax.  It starts off compellingly, as the book chronicles how Clarice Starling falls out of favor of the FBI (I felt she got a bad rap).  Then it goes way off course to Italy, following a totally random investigator, whose actions contribute somewhat to the later investigation (although I felt these scenes were thrown in just because Italy is cool and exotic).  Then the plot kinda wanders around a lot, and then the inevitable conclusion occurs.  Even though I understand why the ending is the way it is (and it actually does underscore the motivations of Hannibal's character throughout Silence of the Lambs a lot better), I think it diminishes Clarice as a character, and it could have all been a little more coherent.  It is a bit of a rushed ending.  I always felt that the ending dinner scene was perverse, for better or for worse.  On top of that, some of the individual scenes and subplots (especially the one regarding Margot Verger) could have been omitted completely.

All that being said, the book does have its merits.  Characters are pretty strong; it is still intriguing to read about Hannibal and Clarice, and Mason Verger is a well-developed adversary.  The book is especially bold in flipping everything around so that Hannibal is the intended protagonist, characters in power are antagonists, and they create a dynamic push and pull that makes the plot twisty.  Parts of the book are pretty well-researched (especially the scenes in Italy).

As far as the prose goes, it's most of the way decent, although there were parts where I felt wording was awkward.  There were a few parts where the tenses were all mixed up:  it tended to flip-flop between past and present tense for some odd reason.  I think this correlated to an odd habit I noticed where the book tried to become first-person by using "we" a lot, as it randomly stated "we notice this" or "we behold that," and the final words of the book are "we can only learn so much and live." What is this "we" garbage? I suspect that there's a bit of pretentiousness there, that the book wanted to deliver a greater truth behind the story, but never really articulated it.  No matter what level of elegance it aimed for, the book remained pretty straightforward and low-key, especially in the occasional indulgence in gnarly details and harsh language.  As such, I think the book would have benefited from more editing and refinement.  Other than those issues, the book is perfectly readable.

Hannibal has its moments, but I feel it's a weird turn of events, which is marred a bit by a slightly weird prose.  This may even be one rare case where I found the movie more appealing than the book.  It's still a fun enough read though, and should be worthwhile for fans of the series.

3/5 (Entertainment:  Good | Story:  Marginal | Book:  Average)

Film Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Wolverine still stands as one of the most prolific, most popular, and most badass superheroes of Marvel lore. The man is literally immortal: he heals instantly, even from mortal wounds, and thanks to that he was grafted with an invincible metal skeleton, complete with retracting adamantium claws. Wolverine kicked plenty of butt in the three main X-Men films, but a stand-alone Wolverine film has always been in the cards, to give fans another chance to see this awesome character in action. So, they made X-Men Origins: Wolverine, in what would be the first in a line of stand-alone prequel movies for each X-Men character.

In hindsight, this proved to be a futile move; despite the film's commercial success, it is easily one of the worst films of the series, and plans to make more Origins films fell through. The film is one hot mess: a haphazard blend of rip-roaring action and plot contrivances.

The good news is that the film is still very tight, highly entertaining, and it does have some great moments. It is really cool to watch Wolverine rampaging through whole hoards of bad guys, taking out hum-vees and helicopters on a motorbike, and fighting mutants around a nuclear reactor plant. The film moves fast and is never skimpy on the action or style.

The story involved in inherently compelling, thanks entirely to the allure of the title character. It is a tragic tale of love, betrayal, and vengeance that helps shape Wolverine into the berserker we all know and love. The plot covers some of the same ground we've seen before in the original X-Men films, but this time you get to see the full background on how Wolverine got suckered into Colonel Stryker's plans. There are a few major twists, which will seem contrived at first glance, but do hold up on repeat viewings. The plot suffers the most with a number of scenes that don't really contribute; many of the action scenes are frivolous, and scenes involving a young Cyclops seem to the thrown in just for the hell of it.

A lot of the film's biggest issues rests with the editing, which is extremely choppy and screwy. A lot of shots are cheaply-cut to cover up deficiencies in the action. Worst yet, most scenes do not transition well from one to another, causing characters to appear at seemingly random places (such as Gambit suddenly appearing on a rooftop, or Victor appearing at the final fight out of nowhere). It is clear that the conflicts between the studio and the director have contributed to a film that's at conflict with itself, unable to find a balance between the heartfelt drama and the hardcore action.

On the plus side, photography is mostly-solid. Performances are a bit of a mixed bag: Hugh Jackman continues to excel at playing his iconic character, and Liev Schreiber is superb as Victor Creed. I enjoyed Danny Huston's and Lynn Collins' performances. Most of the other actors playing the side characters are pretty weak. The writing is pretty weak. This production uses okay sets, props, and costumes. Special effects vary from good to terrible. Music seems uninspired as well.

Wolverine's stand-alone film is not an inherently bad story; in fact, its potential is more effectively conveyed in the film's corresponding video game. Somewhere along the line it got mucked-up, and I blame it mostly on too much post-production tinkering. I still value the film as a guilty pleasure, and it does make for a satisfying stand-alone action flick. In an X-Men marathon, however, it doesn't fit as smoothly with the other films (especially since events in X-Men: First Class contradict this one). Diehard fans will probably want to check this out once, but for casual audiences, you can do better.

3.5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Average | Film: Marginal)