I don't know how you could call the beginning slow, considering it takes all of a minute or two before John Wick is on horseback shooting people.
It takes him quite a long time to kill three people on horseback within pistol range, when he can kill a dozen or more people in a moving car in the same amount of time. But logic aside, the rest of the beginning has a lot of build up and scenes of characters talking. (That ultimately doesn't do much for the plot. Unless you count the after-credits scene.)
Bloodless is a weird complaint considering 1: John Wick is not exactly a bloodbath franchise because of how quick the kills are anyway. 2: There is plenty of blood like on the drum in Osaka.
So I admittedly don’t remember how bloody the movies were or weren’t off hand. But fortunately, I have Youtube to back me up. Watch this and tell me there’s not plenty of blood spray when he shoots people/more blood on John Wick as he carries through the movie.
And the little bit that gets on the drum, is some of the only blood in that action set piece, and it only makes its absence all the more confusing to me.
He didn't feel super heroic at all. There were multiple points in the movie where he actually had to be bailed out.
I don’t mind that he’s usually over the top invulnerable. But he also has several “i’m an old guy” moments, like how comically he fell down those stairs (several times). So it feels a bit tonally off as well. Mixed in with how he never has any blood, dirt or tears on his clothes.
And he certainly took the most punishment in this one, and it seemed the least realistic in terms of how “tired/worn out” he looked after the fact. (Non-spoilers aside.)
Maybe it’s just me. (And my friend who I watched it with.)
The plot isn't any more or less simple than the other movies. The movies are not exactly movies you watch for plot or character development,
Fair enough.
The third movie is him trying to erase an open bounty on him. The fourth is the consequences of everything he's done since the first movie. He's a man on the run, because he has no safe haven and even fewer allies. Everything in the movie makes sense and flows.
(IMO) The bounty felt a lot less impactful this time around. Because it was sort of “dropped” into the story, and all the set up for it was in the third movie.
Unless I’m mistaken. So “oh, uh, we raised the price to a
gazillion dollars”. Doesn’t hold much narrative weight. When “everyone is after you” has already been established.
And for how often they set up how he’s “going in alone, with no allies, and with everyone else against him”. The amount of times that he gets helped in this one, is a bit contradictory.
The omniscient radio announcer, and how all these assassins kept finding him/attacking him while going to multiple locations in less than 24 hours feels a tad farfetched. (The third movie at least gave them several days to hunt him down.
Unless I’m mistaken.) But nitpicking what makes sense or doesn’t, really isn’t my point/goal.
The cinematography isn't 'expensive' looking, it's just well shot and creatively lit to boot.
Expensive-looking doesn’t *have* to be a purely negative critique. In fact, I’d argue that this might be “the best looking” John Wick movie, in terms of how elaborate the set design was at times. (That top-down perspective scene alone probably cost them plenty.) But the proof is in the pudding. John Wick 4’s budget is 100 million. The third was 75. 2nd was 40. Etc.
I’ll agree that money alone doesn’t make a “well shot”/“well remembered” movie. I can’t even recall much of anything that happened in the third movie compared to the first two.
It's a movie that constantly one-ups itself in terms of spectacle and set piece and every single action scene in the movie would've been the climactic action scene of any other movie.
Honestly, one of the weaker points of all of the John Wick movies, is how their endings are usually pretty lackluster. At least in comparison to some of its other scenes and spectacle moments. (2 probably having the best conclusion of the bunch?)
Maybe because “great villains” were never the movies’ strong suit.
Otherwise, I agree that most action movies pale in comparison.
If you're going to comment on people not reacting to the violence then maybe you should watch the other movies.
See video clip of Two again, and I see a crowd of reasonably panicked people. First one has a similar party crowd/reaction.
The movie doesn't 'repeat' so much as 'homage' and raise the stakes and choreography to boot.
I won’t spoil more than I have to. But there’s so many “homages” that I’m surprised no one gave the movie any flak for it. Not even its few critics, far as I saw...
John Wick 4 is tightly paced and still delivers a satisfying narrative in a movie you don't really watch for the narrative.
Agree to disagree about its pacing.
As for the villain, I didn't see him as boring or made to look stupid at all.
Bland might be more accurate. No good lines. No personality. And I never saw them as a threat. And he was never in control, or shown to be intimidating to any other character. Sure, he’s not actually General Hux bad. (Aside from his final scene, when he has a “I believe he’s pranking you sir” moment.) He’s more of a “that one smarmy kid who killed his dog” vibe. But we’re supposed to believe that this kid has some high level of power. (And the other side-villains were pretty bad too.)
Guess that's just my two cents.
Member
Guardian Angel Haruki
KazAlkemi
Tim the Yeti
AlteredTundra
ghostface9961
Hos
Sotiras
Angel Of Red