Announced and actively promoted as a stylish mind-blowing action, the first "John Wick" turned out to be another film from the recently revived series of “pensioners back in the saddle” (“RED”, “Hostage”, “The Great Equalizer”). The only clear and big success on this list is the first “Taken,” while “John Wick” hangs out somewhere in the series of Russophobic retro crafts along with “The Equalizer” and “Taken 3.”
But the point is not about bad dudes from Russia or Eastern Europe, but about the fact that the film came out just bad and dried up, like yesterday’s crackers. John Wick is a tired Keanu with an unshaven face that he hasn’t changed for many years, walking around bars in a beautiful three-piece suit and, as expected, boringly killing Russians to unexpectedly stylish music. He kills in an uninventive, clumsy way, performs tricks that could not have been performed, without generating audience empathy, without expressing any emotions, without prompting any thoughts (yes, go figure, thoughts in an action movie). The plot has no plot, no details, no style, no tension, no overcoming, everything is more than old, nominal and schematic. There is no rhythm in the action, no pulsation, no surprises, nothing that would keep you glued to the screen other than looking at the beautiful interiors of hotels, apartments, bars and saunas. For some reason, the hero opens up with the mafia leader, telling how his enemies took away the most valuable thing in his life (or is he telling this for stupid viewers who didn’t understand this in the first five minutes?). And the mafiosi listen to him compassionately with wet eyes, instead of blowing the brains out of the enemy, in search of whom they wasted a lot of effort and people. For what? Then, so that the creators could attach a plot crutch, which is already 50 years old, and rescue the main character from trouble.
Reeves' John Wick is an uninteresting killer. Neither good nor bad, nor ambiguous, nor deep, nor contradictory. No. He doesn't look like a death machine, he looks exactly like Baba Yaga. This is not his role, not his aesthetics, not his work. His Wick cannot even be placed miles away next to unconditional examples of the genre, such as Geoffrey in "The Hitman" John Woo or Leon by Luc Besson.
I don’t want to hang all the blame (a sad pun) on Wick, because you can’t say anything special about the other characters either, because the viewer knows nothing about them. The head of the Russian mafia, Viggo Tarasov, turned out to be more or less active (we’ll talk about names later), but he was fundamentally wrong when he told his son Joseph: “Go away, you can’t do anything” and hid him under guard in a safe house. After all, it was the son and his friends who were the only ones who freely made their way into Wick’s house, easily and naturally killed the super-killer, leaving him alive for unclear reasons, probably for the purpose of further continuing the film, and stole his car. Whereas an army of professional killers compliantly receive bullets in the forehead and are laid out in even heaps on the lawns. It was necessary for my son to entrust the entire operation to capture “Baba Yaga”. And in general, it’s nice that only the Russians are able to finish off a super-killer and steal his car. Damn nice.
Pros.
Not to say that everything on the screen is bad from the first to the last frame. At some moments, the viewer was given a rare chance to catch on to something really interesting. The positively pretentious underground world and the subculture of hired killers gave me at some point hope for something bright and so attractively noir. True, this topic turned out to be completely unrevealed, which is why McShane, David Patrick Kelly and Defoe look like a slightly bitten apple and just an unnecessary cameo.
Another plus worth noting is the beautiful, moderately vulgar picture, beautiful cars and buildings, sweeping camera work when shooting city panoramas, excellent work with light and color rendering (at Wick’s house, in the cemetery, in the sauna, in the hotel and many other places).
And one of the most important advantages is Daniel Bernhardt, which is as impressive on screen as always. In general, the main role should have been given to him, and Reeves should have been offered the role of some no-name security guard.
The problem with the film is not only that, for a variety of reasons, it is savagely irrelevant and more reminiscent of a beautifully decorated sandbox, but also that even if we take as a basis the favorite postulate of rabid fans of action films - “the plot is not the main thing, the main thing is the action”, then John Wick has nothing to boast about here. Chad Stahalski the comrades seem to be stuck in the Stone Age and are unable to produce anything other than boring shootings by the clumsy Reeves of his conveyor belt opponents and explosions of the automobile industry. Nothing original, nothing that we haven't seen before, for example, from Statham and 20 years before Statham.
P.S.: It was very funny when the doctor gives Reeves a magic pill. It was downright good.
The second part begins with a bird's-eye view of the night metropolis, and then we see John Wick chasing a motorcyclist along the roads of this night city. And here it must be said that Stahalski and Co. made the right conclusions and filled the film with even more beauty than the last time. Working for a long time in the field of design (let’s call it the immodestly loud word “design”), I always told my colleagues: if you have a creative block, just take contrasting colors, two, maximum three colors, and it will always work. The customer will be satisfied. It's the same at Wick. Beautiful night skyscrapers and neon signs, beautiful cars, black pressed suits in contrast with classical architecture and rich interiors are always a thrill. Even if you have nothing to say, at least it’s nice to look at. All the most working clichés will be on the verge of banality, but the audience will like it, it will look “expensive and boho.”
So, he is chasing a motorcyclist in order to eventually take his favorite car from the brother of the Russian villain from the last part. That brother was Viggo, and this brother was Abram. The Tarasov brothers with the original Russian names Viggo and Abram. But in our country, if you point your finger at anyone, he is, if not Viggo, then Abram. God forbid Andrei or Sergei, this is either some visiting infidel, or even an alien. What a mysterious head the American screenwriter has.
So, Wick takes his favorite car, giving it a good time. But this is nonsense, because the main thing is the principle, because he has rhinoceros balls of steel, and the bandits have Revit jelly beans in their pants.
Then there is a very, very funny fight with paralytic bandits attacking one at a time without weapons, one of whom dies from being tripped. At the end, it turns out that Wick has a gun, and the fight was necessary either to ruin the suit, or to show us that Reeves was preparing. And I still Van Damme scolded at "Finish them all". In this regard, I will be cruel, like all armchair experts, and I will say frankly: it is given to some, it is not given to others. Reeves can't. He moves like a bear, heavy and clumsy. Shoots, falls - good. But hand-to-hand combat is not his area of expertise, despite the fact that he often appears in them. No matter how much he prepared, I thought and still think that he is a very mediocre actor in principle and an even more mediocre action actor, without energy, charisma, swiftness and eggs (and what am I all about eggs?). Better than his work in this genre is “Speed”, because of the dynamics, Reeves is still young, good Bullock and Hopper. And “On the Crest of a Wave,” because it’s beautiful, romantic, has a plot and the most wonderful Patrick Swayze, who will pull out any film. Well, in “Constantine” Reeves is also in his place, but this is only partly an action movie.
What happens next is what you can find out by reading the synopsis on any website and watching the trailer. I'll just divide my thoughts into blocks.
Advice.
Of course, Stahalski will hear the advice of my genius and, slipping from excitement, will rush to implement, but still.
There is no need to film Reeves' gait in close-up, from behind and from bottom to top. Firstly, this angle is used too often in the film, and secondly, he has a very unheroic gait, let's call it that. Takeshi Kitano forbids filming himself from the right side due to facial paralysis. Reeves should also be banned from filming from certain angles. There is one moment at the disco where, after the job is done, Wick runs away from the crime scene. So, I’m sure that the running (shot from behind) and jumping over the fence is performed by Reeves’ stunt double.
Regarding the unheroic gait and unheroism in general. I would reduce the number of myths about John Wick that are passed on from mouth to mouth. The characters talk for a long time, pathetically and exaggeratedly about Wick’s adventures, how he eats small children, that he is the devil in the flesh and all that, but when you see Reeves, you don’t believe it. It could work in contrast that the killer looks like a weakling, but when he starts to act, the villain trembles... But I was not convinced by the action performed by Reeves. Well, he’s not cool and that’s all. Everyone loves, respects and admires him. Why such honors? He has some kind of killer superpowers, but where does he get them from if he doesn’t even need to keep them in shape?
Let's summarize the advantages:
- Beautiful, expensive, rich. The green screen only caught my eye a couple of times. Here is an example of how to properly master budgets. From light and color to costumes and locations, everything will delight your eye. Unless, of course, it's to your taste.
- Captions.
- The so-called “tasting”.
- Franco Nero, Ian McShane, John Leguizamo и Heidi Moneymaker in the episode (why not give her a bigger role, for example, instead of Ruby Rose? But Heidi can do it anyway).
- The right show-off, killer ethics, Continental, subculture of killers, the issue of promissory notes, many different characters. I would like a spin-off with other heroes, a series of films about the formation of the underground world of killers.
- Not a bad idea for the shootout scene, which is called “no fawn”, in the subway between Wick and Cassian. It was necessary to enrich it with something else. Again with humor. Or let them talk on the phone at this time.
- Cameo Laurence Fishburne. The cameo is optional, really, but Matrix fans will be delighted. I am far from a fan of The Matrix, but the move is very correct, it would have been a sin not to use it. Like with the pill in the first part.
- The final batch - hello to “Dragon Island”. True, it could be shortened, but it’s still nice.
Questions, wishes, regrets:
- It is strange that the killer lives calmly in a house without any protection, without fear of the avengers.
- Wick initially got into the meat grinder because his house was blown up for not keeping his own word. In general, as in the joke: dude, you are not a phenomenon, you are an asshole.
- About the house. Let me describe the essence of the problem to you: the brother orders Wick his sister, not really hiding this fact, but he himself cannot kill her, “because she is his relative and he loves her.” They wanted to show a picture of unscrupulousness - they showed it, they succeeded. Wick abandons the case, and this brother easily blows up Wick's house, with Wick on board, but without killing him. Why none of the killers used the same method in the future is a mystery. Next comes Wick’s setup to show that his brother has nothing to do with it and is taking revenge for his sister. But this looks extremely crazy, because every cleaning lady knows who the real killer is.
- Hence, I have always been interested in the question: how is the issue of information leakage resolved, when everyone knows everything about everything, who went where to kill whom. You can refer to another rule of the code, but I would like an alternative option.
- John Wick has no inner world, he doesn’t joke (it’s terrible when the main character has no sense of humor, it’s death for the hero), he doesn’t smile. And the rest of the characters don’t shine with humor either.
- Wick is the only owner of a bulletproof suit. The rest don't even have good old bulletproof vests.
- Wick's attempts to get off the killer track look like the Scorpions' farewell tour.
- All of Wick's enemies are crooked and monstrously stupid loser killers, only he is D'Artagnan.
- No one will shoot Wick with a sniper rifle, no one will throw grenades, everyone strives to come into close contact, as the song sang - “slightly touching with their sleeves,” and die.
- There are no police in the film.
- The main active antagonist was Cassian (rapper Common), who didn’t pull off his character. Charm was not enough. Killer girl performed Ruby Rose unreasonably and excessively furious, but why, why - no one knows. Ambition? Brain disease? Hormonal disbalance? A few words about this. And Glavgad, played by Ricardo Scamarcio, just another popular villain with an unpleasant face from some Bond film from the Brosnan period. In short, there is no worthy opponent.
- You can buy a gun at any crossing, right? Why is this topic about “7 bullets for 7 million” except for pathos and a plot crutch?
- In one sequence, Wick shoots an enemy in the head without fear of shooting himself in the leg. Strange. Probably a bulletproof boot or superpowers again.
- In the museum shootout, I would have done different music.
- There are a lot of shootouts, at some point they get tiring because the ingenuity runs out quickly.
- Hand-to-hand combat is clumsy. I didn’t remember anything, although there were knives and stalls. But what they are, what they are not. I thought it would be better.
- The ending. “Whoever comes, I will kill them all, every single one of them.” Damn, how tired of you. You are not worthy of jumping off, you are not worthy of empathy, you are not worthy of a family. It looks like you're not really dreaming about it. Most likely, you want peace. But I don’t believe you and I don’t want to root for you, John Wick, I don’t know how you live, what you think about, and what you need. Mystery and depth of personality? Nevermind, you have nothing behind your soul. For some reason we should love the main character so much, but for what? Perhaps Wick’s eternally stony face is some kind of banter at genre cliches, but it’s not funny to me. And yet, after Wick was declared an ex-communado, he should not have run cowardly to dramatic music, afraid of getting shot. He had to heroically go into a beautiful arch after a conversation with Winston (McShane), and then there would be a close-up of the stamp in his personal file and the credits.
The film was made by good technologists and craftsmen so that the viewer splashes out adrenaline and comes off after boring office work, but its merits and coolness are greatly exaggerated by viewers and critics in a situation of almost complete lack of fish. It's beautiful, but empty. Meanwhile, the third part is ahead.
Home » Reviews »
Tags: common, John Wick, John Wick: Chapter Two, John Leguizamo, Daniel Bernhard, Ian McShane, Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Ruby Rose, Willem Defoe, Franco Nero, Chad Stahelski
Tags: common, John Wick, John Wick: Chapter Two, John Leguizamo, Daniel Bernhard, Ian McShane, Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Ruby Rose, Willem Defoe, Franco Nero, Chad Stahelski
John Wick is an action movie of the highest quality. The author probably pays attention exclusively to fighting games. Personally, I prefer to watch quality action movies than ridiculous knockoffs like Wild Dog or the second Hard Target.
I personally liked both parts. Keanu, of course, is inferior in terms of coolness to the same Statham or Donnie Yen, but it is clear that the actor tried to perform his own stunts whenever possible and this inspires respect. The film is very good. And it's worth watching at least once. In any case, "John Wick" looks a hundred times better than the poor film adaptations of "Hitman", which did not have anything close to an original approach.
If John Wick 2, The Raid and Mad Max are bad action films, then what are good ones? That shit in which Scott Adkins has been starring lately? Or maybe Donnie Yen's latest work? Three X's, for example?
I completely disagree with both reviews, especially with the second, which is very difficult to call such. The first film is quite strong, the second is wonderful. The student from the first comment, who has no opinion and calls the films “The Raid” and “Mad Max: Fury Road” bad, is clearly a little out of his mind, and that’s putting it mildly. The claims are ridiculous and biased. Thank you for your attention.
About the pencil (I read it somewhere, I don’t remember) supposedly from Trevanyan’s “Shibumi” (I bought the book half a year ago, but didn’t get around to it), so the image is collective. I’m glad that there’s a “thaw” in the comments, but if this level and effort of the film team is to spread rot, then what can we talk about at all? And Reeves did a great job, he prepared, he ran around the gyms and shooting ranges...
I also remembered that at the very beginning the hero Stormare tells another bandit a “legend” about how Wick single-handedly killed a bunch of people there with a pencil. It’s clear that this is a boyan who drives a boyan on a boyan. And here is just an example of Wick’s parody. Is this going to be played out in any way? Somewhere towards the end of the film, Wick grabs a pencil and not very creatively and quickly cades a couple of people.
But if at the beginning of the film he would have done this: he would have gone to the shaking Stormare, having previously killed his entire army of bandits, and would have taken a pencil from his bosom with an ominous smile or simply raising an eyebrow. And Storamere is like, covering himself with his hands: No, no, no, no!!
And Wick, I don’t know... draws a dog on the table, or simply puts the pencil back, or stirs the ice in a glass with it and says: “Peace?” .. well, further on the plot.
Well, something like that.
I won’t say that I disagree with the criticism that Raven outlined, but I still think the John Wick duology is almost one of the best action films of the last 5-6 years for sure.
Despite all the disadvantages, both the first and second John Wick are stylish films made by professional stuntmen for the sake of action. Yes, it’s sad that the plot here is secondary, but for the eyes and the soul hungry for high-quality action, the film is very satisfying. Especially the second film, where in addition to the action there is a stunningly beautiful picture and soundtrack.
I like the comic world that the creators drew - all these mysterious organizations of killers, promissory notes, codes, Ian McShane in the end :) Looks like noir comics from the 90s. This is exactly how I perceive these films. And that’s why I perceive it as normal when men go to avenge a killed dog, a stolen car and the desecrated memory of a deceased loved one.
Yes, maybe Keanu Reeves is far from the best action hero, but I can’t help but be imbued with respect for this actor, seeing how he tries on the screen, does his own stunts as much as possible, shoots, runs, falls, fights, etc. . Of course, I would like his character to be revealed a little more, since I am confident in Reeves’ acting talents.
As a result, I really had a blast sitting in theaters for the first and second films. This kind of action is filmed rarely enough to not enjoy John Wicks. We need to seize the moment.
Danil Chupakhin,
1) the film is definitely bright and stylish and beautiful.
2) definitely professionally made, from a technology point of view.
here, of course, I agree, and my eyes were happy.
but if there is no life in the film, the world is not revealed, and the hero is uninteresting, and you don’t believe him, and you don’t believe in him, even if he has kreptonite in his butt, all the professionally staged stunts will not work. This is a movie, not laboratory work. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s banter, a comic, or the Prince of Denmark. Just remember, "Hudson Hawk" with Willis. Banter, parody, vaudeville about sketchy characters, but it’s cool because the characters are alive. And also, by the way, a noir comic. They talked about "Sin City" here in the comments. So in “Sin City” they worked on each character to make him different, there is pure aesthetics.
And it's not about the plot as such. I listed above that a lot of good action movies don't have a complex or deep plot. A super plot, in principle, can ruin and even ruin an action movie. I'm saying, first of all, that there is no hero created in Wick, there is no character in principle, except for his incomprehensible silent suffering and desire to retire.
And that’s exactly what, the world of these killers is a very cool idea, but everyone was too caught up in the shootings. And everyone cancels each other out. And, apart from the joke about the Pope, there is no corporate humor at all.
And we seem to have seen these shootings a hundred times already. And these fights are clumsy. As it is, the movie won’t budge one iota.
It’s a pity that the film simply had bomb potential; it could have put all these sugary and major action films in the belt.
Of course, this is imhonautics.
The first John Wick is an excellent action movie, stylish, dynamic, with an excellent Daniel Bernhardt, an example of what an action movie should be, this becomes especially clear when you compare this film with all sorts of finish them all, and Reeves, by the way, looks great.
So no one takes it seriously. The problem is that the film came out serious. He is completely devoid of self-irony, and the main character is uncharming. Banter also has its own laws; they are not respected in Wick.
I wonder if I’ll ever get a review of the film “Sin City” indicating that there are no such chins as Rourke’s and that if you fall off a motorcycle like that you don’t survive or some other similar nonsense? Well, how can you take a film so seriously where a killer takes revenge for a puppy? The images are not revealed, there are no motivations - yes, this is, damn it, an action movie in another reality where there is a mega-mafia of homeless people and a cop, having arrived at a meat grinder worse than Kosovo, asks the killer if he is back in business. Maybe someone from the Marvel universe will appear in the third part, there is nothing to be surprised at, but one has to be surprised at such harsh assessments. Indeed, there are people in cinema who have surprised us with new approaches in recent years - but no, they have already “encroached” on Reid in the comments
But I didn’t take it seriously, I like the first part. However, the attempt in the second part to use the principle of “the same cabbage soup, but add thicker” turned against him. The director created a unique world, and at the same time overdid it, as a result, this world falls apart under its own weight and it is no longer possible to close your eyes to the ongoing stream of nonsense and immerse yourself in the atmosphere, every five seconds you ask yourself “What the hell is going on on the screen.” There are killers at every step, in the third part, in general, every atom will turn out to be a killer, even the sky, even Allah. There is a limit to everything; the creators were let down by their sense of proportion.
Ahaha, as if Raid is sacred. Okay, maybe it's a matter of taste. I don't like Raid because of the pacing of the story. When you eat, you don't stuff yourself with three servings of ice cream instead of the first, second and dessert. The film does not have all the components for a full-fledged film, there is only adrenaline and tension. The value of tension is overestimated, you simply get tired of the film, everything flies by, nothing lingers in your memory.
In the sequel, the director slowed down the pace, added drama and tried to create a crime drama. That’s when all the shortcomings came out, including secondary ones. It was not possible to create Once Upon a Time in Indonesia.
Dmitry Padalko,
So is Die Hard action movie, and Terminator, and Predator, and Bloodsport...
The Terminator is also a different reality, but all the teenagers cried when Arnie plunged himself into liquid metal at the end of the film. We felt sorry for the robot. A robot, not a person! We empathized with the car.
Isn't Die Hard a banal action movie? Well, this is a stupid movie about a hostage crisis in a skyscraper, much more primitive. But we were rooting for McClane, he was his own guy, he was a person, not the typical muscular tanned Rambo, a simple cop in a drunk T-shirt spouted aphorisms and jokes, crawled in an elevator shaft, ran barefoot on glass and saved the world, but it seemed , just a random hero, but he was cool, because he couldn’t be killed despite the circumstances, and the poor guy was divorcing his wife, after all!
And the Predator? The film is about how men with machine guns spend the entire film chasing an alien in the jungle. And nothing else happens there. But for some time Schwartz looks vulnerable and a small bug compared to his opponent, wow! And there's an alien with dreadlocks!
What about Bloodsport? A film about underground battles, the plot could not be simpler. But you recognize this music from thousands and when they say Chong Li, you immediately know who they are talking about. But doesn’t Van Damme’s final spin to the epic music motivate you to go and rock the old days yourself?
You understand, I understand everything as well as you about reality, action and everything in the world, but what is the new approach in Wick? One unkillable cardboard character kills a lot and often other easy-to-kill cardboard characters.
I really like the first Sin City, cool stuff. Rourke is bursting with energy and color there. I don't see any contradictions.
By the way, Gary Daniels was still in John Wick 2, albeit as a stuntman.
Tuts33,
So Benhardt in the second part is listed in the credits as a stuntman.
Finally, an objective opinion, otherwise everyone is behaving like schoolchildren, dropping their pants; it’s worth the appearance of another stupid action movie with a claim to stylishness and uniqueness, like The Raid and Mad Max.
I didn’t specifically read this review until I watched the second part. Now I looked, and accordingly, read. I don't agree with the review. At the beginning, Anton Clemens wrote in the comments that, finally, there is an “objective opinion”, but for some reason it seemed to me, just the opposite, this objective opinion arose in defiance of the fact that the majority like the film, and if so , then we’ll take the film apart piece by piece and write that it’s crap. No offense. I just got the impression that the reviewer either can’t stand Keanu Reeves, or is a quivering intellectual who, again, can’t stand “action films with stupid plots.”
I have long considered it bad manners to write about plots in action films. It is already clear and understandable to everyone that most screenwriters, both here and there, use only hundredths of a percent of gray matter when writing scripts. As, indeed, do people who then watch the fruits of their brain efforts. This is, in fact, why they are watched. And why is everyone clinging to this unfortunate dog?! Does GG’s motivation seem to be a far-fetched idea? Like he killed a bunch of people just for a dead dog and a stolen car? Maybe. But don't people in everyday life kill and maim for less? No, I don’t argue, the GG’s motivation could easily have been strengthened, but in this case, that’s enough! I remember in my youth I was a terrible misanthrope (like, probably, most young people, exactly until the moment when people close to you begin to pass away and your own children do not appear), and then it seemed to me that I could easily kill a person, but not , say, a dog. “Believe me, no, I don’t feel sorry for a person, but I feel sorry for a bird!” - as Sasha Bely said. And if a person can and knows how to kill, will Raskolnikov’s torments stop him, if several scum, not giving a damn about his rights and other nonsense, simply took what they wanted. But a dog is the last hello, goodbye, love from the only person dear to you, whom you could not save! And I couldn’t get a dog! And you know how to kill. You don’t love it, yes, but you know how. It's just work: dirty, boring to the point of vomiting, but work. It’s just that young lawless people just ran into the wrong guy... That’s what the first film is about. And this is the character of GG: he is unemotional, an introvert, pedantic in everyday life and, due to the specifics of his profession and life priorities, it is better not to take him out of this state. But in the second part, the withdrawal of the GG from the state of equilibrium seemed to me very far-fetched. I agree here. The second part itself, in my opinion, is weaker than the first, although the action is not bad at all.
Further, the film itself is captivating not because of the plot, but because of the technique used by the main character to wield a firearm. So-called: tactical fire training: combat in the city, in cramped conditions, with a quick change of weapons, constant movements, etc. A fashionable feature in the West these days. And I must say, Keanu in this style looks organic and believable (if such a word is applicable for action films). As far as I understand, he is into this in real life. By the way, in terms of combat, I associate the taste of Equilibrium...
Which I agree with one hundred percent - Keanu is never a hand-to-hand fighter: clumsy and completely unconvincing. What was disgraced in The Matrix and Tai Chi in the Warrior (so it seems). It's not his at all.
In general, on behalf of the viewers who
I will say that for me this is one of the most interesting action films of recent years after the first Taken.
In principle, neither one nor the other, nor the third.
He is indifferent to Reeves, his intellect is not particularly brilliant, and regarding an action movie with a stupid plot, specifics are needed. The plot is different from the plot, the stupidity of the stupidity is different. Depends on other components - on whether the main character is interesting or not, on the acting, on the action. The “Hostage” you mentioned is a completely primitive and not original plot. But the film is good. Because a) there is a character, well-written, with charisma, you empathize with him, even when he is a terminator; b) the film has dynamics and pulse;
Anton Clemens,
Mad Max is a good example. I had his unexpectedly hype blast at the CP.
I read it with interest, thank you! ;)
A very fair scolding, which once again proves that there is no place for Posers (Face Traders) in the line of GG fighters with fights, and these same Actors, to their shame, it’s time to understand and accept this