With the fourth installment scoring immensely at the cinemas as I'm submitting this review, and after three previous films that are apparently loved by everyone else in the world, I thought perhaps it would be time for me check out "John Wick".
But, even though I'm late to the party as usual, I don't feel like I've missed out on a lot. "John Wick" is a fast-paced and adrenaline-rushing action flick, but not the traditional type of action movie, like "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon". Since a good fifteen years or so, there seemingly exists an additional new sub-genre within the world of action/thriller cinema, which is best described as "Shoot 'em Up" films, and "John Wick" neatly fits into this category. Other examples include "Shoot 'em Up", - duh - , "Crank", "Hardcore Henry", "Free Fire", "Taken" and "Everly". You guessed it; - these are films with very thin plots and without any proper character development, but they primarily focus on non-stop violent action, excessively over-the-top gunfire action and a practically immeasurable body count. They are entertaining if you're in a completely undemanding mood, I reckon, but they are quite unmemorable as well. Moreover, despite all the action and bloodshed, these films are sort of boring, because they constantly repeat the same old "bang-bang-you're-all-dead" routine.
The most interesting aspects about "John Wick" are definitely the structural framework and background stories the script constantly hints at. The rudimentary plot of an invincible and stoic hitman coming out of retirement to extract vengeance of a personal nature is really old and has been told hundreds of times before. The organization in which our protagonist operates, however, is intriguing to say the least. He knows everyone, both the ones supporting him and the ones he's shooting up, there's a sort of code of conduct that includes the use of specific coins and the respect of neutral zones, the cleaning up bloody shootout aftermaths is referred to as diner reservations, and even the local law enforcer doesn't seem surprised when John answers the door with a bloodied face. None of these particularities ever get explained, but then again, there are at least three more films.
The sole thing to bear in mind when watching a film like "John Wick" remains: don't ask yourself any questions. Where does the never-ending supply of redundant henchmen keeps coming from? Why can't anyone hit a target expect for the hero? Why engage into a fistfight when there's a possibility for a clean shot? Why capture your target instead of killing him straight away, for that matter? You know he'll just escape again and kill you instead. Most importantly, why didn't anyone at least try to apologize to Wick for murdering his puppy?
If you seek logic and answers to these questions, "John Wick" is a terrible film. In case you accept what it is, there's entertainment aplenty thanks to the impressive stunt work, the solid performances by Keanu Reeves and the supportive cast, inventive little gimmicks, and a whole lot of mean people that get punished for making the wrong career choices in their lives.
But, even though I'm late to the party as usual, I don't feel like I've missed out on a lot. "John Wick" is a fast-paced and adrenaline-rushing action flick, but not the traditional type of action movie, like "Die Hard" or "Lethal Weapon". Since a good fifteen years or so, there seemingly exists an additional new sub-genre within the world of action/thriller cinema, which is best described as "Shoot 'em Up" films, and "John Wick" neatly fits into this category. Other examples include "Shoot 'em Up", - duh - , "Crank", "Hardcore Henry", "Free Fire", "Taken" and "Everly". You guessed it; - these are films with very thin plots and without any proper character development, but they primarily focus on non-stop violent action, excessively over-the-top gunfire action and a practically immeasurable body count. They are entertaining if you're in a completely undemanding mood, I reckon, but they are quite unmemorable as well. Moreover, despite all the action and bloodshed, these films are sort of boring, because they constantly repeat the same old "bang-bang-you're-all-dead" routine.
The most interesting aspects about "John Wick" are definitely the structural framework and background stories the script constantly hints at. The rudimentary plot of an invincible and stoic hitman coming out of retirement to extract vengeance of a personal nature is really old and has been told hundreds of times before. The organization in which our protagonist operates, however, is intriguing to say the least. He knows everyone, both the ones supporting him and the ones he's shooting up, there's a sort of code of conduct that includes the use of specific coins and the respect of neutral zones, the cleaning up bloody shootout aftermaths is referred to as diner reservations, and even the local law enforcer doesn't seem surprised when John answers the door with a bloodied face. None of these particularities ever get explained, but then again, there are at least three more films.
The sole thing to bear in mind when watching a film like "John Wick" remains: don't ask yourself any questions. Where does the never-ending supply of redundant henchmen keeps coming from? Why can't anyone hit a target expect for the hero? Why engage into a fistfight when there's a possibility for a clean shot? Why capture your target instead of killing him straight away, for that matter? You know he'll just escape again and kill you instead. Most importantly, why didn't anyone at least try to apologize to Wick for murdering his puppy?
If you seek logic and answers to these questions, "John Wick" is a terrible film. In case you accept what it is, there's entertainment aplenty thanks to the impressive stunt work, the solid performances by Keanu Reeves and the supportive cast, inventive little gimmicks, and a whole lot of mean people that get punished for making the wrong career choices in their lives.