This film was an enjoyable watch. It was one of those films that are not super great or close to bad while being one that manages to be entertaining. Whenever that's what you're looking for, whenever you're in the mood for that type of film, I think this one fits the profile.
I'm sure the majority of people didn't like this film, possibly because films that aren't undoubtedly great and worthy of praise are seen as inferior: rightfully so, I suppose, only that's then used as justification to not like a film like that or consider it a bad one. I feel like that sort of mindset does play a factor sometimes. But there are probably some other people, as well, who don't have that mindset and still didn't like this film, which is fair.
The main reason for this film's enjoyment was, without a doubt, John Travolta. His performance as Charlie Wax was very entertaining: and it, dare I say, "saved the film." But let's not forget about Jonathan Rhys Meyers. He, too, and his performance as James Reece, was another reason for this film's enjoyment. And the combination of those two actors, along with their characters, was good.
There didn't seem to be much of a story to me. And the twist towards the end wasn't shocking because I was expecting that reveal, although the scene itself was a highlight in the film. But I have seen this film before, years ago. I think that was before I started logging what I watch. That probably lessened the impact of the story for me. I imagine those watching it for the first time could find the story super exciting and that twist shocking.
Regardless, the reason I found this film to be as enjoyable as it was, is because of the two main actors, along with their characters. I couldn't have cared less about the story. The biggest draw was the two main characters/their actors, and the story paled in comparison to what they brought to this film.
The action sequences were decent enough, I suppose. I guess they could've been a little better. And the editing of some fight sequences could've been done better as well. But I don't think that aspect was a big deal. It's not like I was expecting them to be better. They were fine.
I thought the suspense was pretty decent, at least in the few scenes where it was supposed to be. Pierre Morel, the director, did a good job concerning that.
The score composed by David Buckley was also pretty decent. Not only that, in the sense that it sounded good and all that, but I thought it went well, and hand in hand, with the directing by Pierre Morel, especially during the more suspenseful scenes.
And all the other technical aspects, like the production design, cinematography, costume design, etc., including the action sequences, were decent enough. Nothing stood out. Nothing was bad. While those aspects aren't that important to me, I feel like specifying that they were decent was necessary.
Other thoughts:
Charlie Wax's introduction to the film was iconic. If you disagree, you're wrong. Plain and simple. And the last part of that scene, along with the score that began playing, was top-notch. John Travolta, man. He's the man.
Ah, Amber Rose Revah played Nichole. The actress looked familiar, and I couldn't remember who she was during the film. She was the actress in The Punisher who played Dinah Madani. I wouldn't have remembered that.
Kasia Smutniak displayed a decent performance, especially in the dinner scene after the twist and at the end of the film. John Travolta, especially, and Jonathan Rhys Meyers still carried the film. More than her. But that didn't drag down her performance at all.
All-in-all, this was a bit of a weak film. But it was fun to watch. Mainly because of John Travolta/his character, Charlie Wax. The story was alright, as was everything else. An 'alright' film "saved" by the ridiculousness of Charlie Wax. I don't think this film has that much rewatchability, but that could be because I've watched it before: although, it was the same with This Means War and Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and those films are very rewatchable.
I guess this film is more of a one-off type deal. Once you watch it, it's not as good, possibly because it's genuinely a weak film that still happened to be somewhat worth it, which was lucky, I suppose. I still enjoyed it, though.
Review by LineageBlockedParent2022-04-06T17:42:47Z
"Wax on, wax off."
This film was an enjoyable watch. It was one of those films that are not super great or close to bad while being one that manages to be entertaining. Whenever that's what you're looking for, whenever you're in the mood for that type of film, I think this one fits the profile.
I'm sure the majority of people didn't like this film, possibly because films that aren't undoubtedly great and worthy of praise are seen as inferior: rightfully so, I suppose, only that's then used as justification to not like a film like that or consider it a bad one. I feel like that sort of mindset does play a factor sometimes. But there are probably some other people, as well, who don't have that mindset and still didn't like this film, which is fair.
The main reason for this film's enjoyment was, without a doubt, John Travolta. His performance as Charlie Wax was very entertaining: and it, dare I say, "saved the film." But let's not forget about Jonathan Rhys Meyers. He, too, and his performance as James Reece, was another reason for this film's enjoyment. And the combination of those two actors, along with their characters, was good.
There didn't seem to be much of a story to me. And the twist towards the end wasn't shocking because I was expecting that reveal, although the scene itself was a highlight in the film. But I have seen this film before, years ago. I think that was before I started logging what I watch. That probably lessened the impact of the story for me. I imagine those watching it for the first time could find the story super exciting and that twist shocking.
Regardless, the reason I found this film to be as enjoyable as it was, is because of the two main actors, along with their characters. I couldn't have cared less about the story. The biggest draw was the two main characters/their actors, and the story paled in comparison to what they brought to this film.
The action sequences were decent enough, I suppose. I guess they could've been a little better. And the editing of some fight sequences could've been done better as well. But I don't think that aspect was a big deal. It's not like I was expecting them to be better. They were fine.
I thought the suspense was pretty decent, at least in the few scenes where it was supposed to be. Pierre Morel, the director, did a good job concerning that.
The score composed by David Buckley was also pretty decent. Not only that, in the sense that it sounded good and all that, but I thought it went well, and hand in hand, with the directing by Pierre Morel, especially during the more suspenseful scenes.
And all the other technical aspects, like the production design, cinematography, costume design, etc., including the action sequences, were decent enough. Nothing stood out. Nothing was bad. While those aspects aren't that important to me, I feel like specifying that they were decent was necessary.
Other thoughts:
Charlie Wax's introduction to the film was iconic. If you disagree, you're wrong. Plain and simple. And the last part of that scene, along with the score that began playing, was top-notch. John Travolta, man. He's the man.
Ah, Amber Rose Revah played Nichole. The actress looked familiar, and I couldn't remember who she was during the film. She was the actress in The Punisher who played Dinah Madani. I wouldn't have remembered that.
Kasia Smutniak displayed a decent performance, especially in the dinner scene after the twist and at the end of the film. John Travolta, especially, and Jonathan Rhys Meyers still carried the film. More than her. But that didn't drag down her performance at all.
All-in-all, this was a bit of a weak film. But it was fun to watch. Mainly because of John Travolta/his character, Charlie Wax. The story was alright, as was everything else. An 'alright' film "saved" by the ridiculousness of Charlie Wax. I don't think this film has that much rewatchability, but that could be because I've watched it before: although, it was the same with This Means War and Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and those films are very rewatchable.
I guess this film is more of a one-off type deal. Once you watch it, it's not as good, possibly because it's genuinely a weak film that still happened to be somewhat worth it, which was lucky, I suppose. I still enjoyed it, though.