Director Gina Prince-Bythewood's film shares strengths, weaknesses of <em>Extraction</em>
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Review: The Old Guard is a solid thriller whose parts don’t add up to a whole
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
This. They don't know seem to be "immortal" until the first time they are killed. I mean I'd think Niles would have noticed the first time she cut herself and it healed immediately. Since this apparently never happened, and no one gets through childhood without a random cut or scrape, it's likely they don't start regenerating before a certain point in their life, and Andy had her ears pierced before that point.
And yes, piercings have been around basically forever. We have 5000 year old mummified remains with pierced ears. "Andromache of Scythia" hints that Andy is about 3500 years old (Scythia is the region the ancient Greeks got the stories of the Amazons from, Andromache was an Amazon queen who fought Hercules, and the name Andromache figures significantly in the Trojan War, roughly 1200 BCE.)
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
There are many movies-from-books I feel would be better if given a 6-8 episodic treatment. There are also many that would benefit from that format as well. Just keep churning them out with good production quality and acting and I honestly think people would indulge in watching those stories in that fashion. When it's over it's done and they can move on to the next story. Netflix is the perfect platform for this model imo.
As for The Old Guard my wife and I watched it last night. It's decent enough, not the best action flick but the story was quite fascinating even if the twist was obvious from the get-go. Although, I must say I do agree that more backstory on the main characters would be neat to see as well.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
How is this not result of traditional Hollywood test screenings? Are you just making stuff up?
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
hmmm...I don't think 'Andi' got piercings in childhood and/or before becoming 'immortal' - and here is why....
The above pic contains two screen shots from the movie.
The upper left pic is 'Andi' in ancient times in battle on horse back riding, notice no piercings on left ear. She was an 'immortal' at this point and did not have piercings.
The lower right pic is 'Andi' again in modern times (movie modern), notice piercings on left ear. She was also an immortal at this point but now has piercings.
'Andi' got the piercings after she became an 'immortal'
Plus there are a few times in the movie piercings appear and then disappear later, for example the below:
So...I think Andi got piercings after childhood and after becoming an immortal. This takes me back to my original reply to that of...
to which I previously replied with this:
Actually they explain this in the movie, its sort of slipped in and you can miss it if you are not listening and paying attention.
The evil doc has pierced one of the immortals on her table with an instrument. She remarks that the wound healed then sealed around the instrument.
'Andi's' pierced ears are healed, there is nothing in the movie to indicate they are not. But the evil doc remarks explain how it happened, the wounds (when the ear is pierced to insert the post) heal around the piercing post.
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
AmanoJyaku
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Leave it to a bunch of nitpicks to obsess over a woman's body in an entirely non-sexual way. lol
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Or, I dunno, she could have taken the earrings out, even in ancient times. They are removable you know
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
1. A poor reviewer and/or review is a poor reviewer and/or review - and - a good reviewer and/or review is a good reviewer and/or review. Its got nothing to do with the mystical "subjective" aspect cry of art that gets flipped out like part of a swiss army knife of excuses and ranks right up there with 'think of the children'. Art being subjective or not has nothing to do with if a reviewer and/or review is poor or not. Reviewers and/or reviews for entertainment are suppose to be critical in view point, not biased, and not bent to the mystical 'subjective' of art.
2. Yes, Ars is a business...what the heck that has to do with anything here is nothing. If people stop reading her reviews just what is Ars management gonna do, whats gonna happen? They gonna hang her from the nearest yardarm or make her walk the plank? They gonna sacrifice a few puppies? You think they will take away her Ars coffee mug? You think they will feed her to Moon Shark? Just what action is management gonna take?
Oh yeah ...I know...Ars management isn't gonna do anything because people don't read her reviews, but if shes a poor reviewer they might replace her.
Yes, Ars is a business but management isn't gonna do anything because people don't read her reviews because reading reviews is 'subjective'.
Big deal someone does not like her reviews and some people do. That's part of being a journalist, sometimes people are not gonna like what is written and some people will like it.
Stop being so 'drama queen' dramatic. Shes a big girl and can take a little criticism, as a journalist its part of her job to accept and deal with that some will or will not like what she writes. You don't need to jump in with the silly power of the mystical 'subjective' art excuse to defend her. Stop getting so emotionally invested in things like this and you might survive your teen years without an ulcer.
Upvote
-19
(0
/
-19)
mckorr wrote:
Or, I dunno, she could have taken the earrings out, even in ancient times. They are removable you know
LoL
even if she did remove them the holes would have closed back up and she would have had to re-pierce while being an immortal.
Upvote
-3
(0
/
-3)
Agreed - one of the better Netflix movies out there. My wife even enjoyed it, which is more of a bar for an action movie.
Re your gripe:
to me it was implied that they had assumed Quynh (?) had reached the limits of her regeneration and true died at some point. Obviously they had no idea what the mechanism behind becoming mortal again was, but they seemed to think your body just couldn't keep it up indefinitely - that at some point the lifetime damage was too much. And even a hundred years of dying every what, 2 minutes? Would add up very quickly.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
My word. I’m sorry - but that is just far too much time and effort to spend on analysing a Netflix movie characters earrings. I’m out. Still a great movie though.
hmmm...I don't think 'Andi' got piercings in childhood and/or before becoming 'immortal' - and here is why....
The above pic contains two screen shots from the movie.
The upper left pic is 'Andi' in ancient times in battle on horse back riding, notice no piercings on left ear. She was an 'immortal' at this point and did not have piercings.
The lower right pic is 'Andi' again in modern times (movie modern), notice piercings on left ear. She was also an immortal at this point but now has piercings.
'Andi' got the piercings after she became an 'immortal'
Plus there are a few times in the movie piercings appear and then disappear later, for example the below:
So...I think Andi got piercings after childhood and after becoming an immortal. This takes me back to my original reply to that of...
to which I previously replied with this:
Actually they explain this in the movie, its sort of slipped in and you can miss it if you are not listening and paying attention.
The evil doc has pierced one of the immortals on her table with an instrument. She remarks that the wound healed then sealed around the instrument.
'Andi's' pierced ears are healed, there is nothing in the movie to indicate they are not. But the evil doc remarks explain how it happened, the wounds (when the ear is pierced to insert the post) heal around the piercing post.
Upvote
16
(16
/
0)
Good is good, and bad is bad. It's so obvious. The Galactus of brains.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I've just watched it. It was a pretty good movie. I really enjoyed it. Looking forward to the obvious sequel.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Really fun movie, and well-enough done to be thought-provoking. Not something I usually see in my popcorn action flicks.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
I got a change to watch the film. I found it enjoyable, but not a classic. I think it was slightly limited as being an almost direct adaptation of the comic (writer for the movie is the creator of the comic book it is based on, although I haven't read the comic). I bet some things don't transfer well into a 2 hour film. Some of my thoughts (with massive spoilers)
Aside from Nile... none of the motivations of any of the characters with agency are fleshed out well. Joe and Nicky are great - especially the van scene. But Andy and Booker fail the "show don't tell" rule as both basically have to explain their existential angst (along with like 30 seconds of flashbacks). Perhaps the comics delved into this more
Merrick is a cringeworthy comic book vill... (ah... jokes on me). I mean even Copley literally says something like "wtf, why are you being a sadist, you can get tissue samples without torturing them." Why does a pharmaceutical CEO have what is essentially a private army? Why is he such a sadist? The movie never actually shows him doing anything evil before encountering the immortals. The worse he's admitted to doing is killing a thousands of lab mice in order to create an actual cure/treatment for cancer that works. Heck, I would easily take that deal and sleep easy a night... how did he go from killing the mice (in reality all test animals are typically killed after an experiment), to sadistically stabbing people with a letter opener? And why the heck did he decide to challenge the immortals at the end with the gun and an axe, how stupid was that? Why not be like all Dr Roboniks and fly away promising future revenge once you've regathered resources?
Copley is also a huge question. He starts off by hiring a lot mercenaries to essentially try and murder the immortals... to prove that they are immortal. Then he flips and admits he's their greatest fan-boy. If you are so interested in helping the world... perhaps hiring a bunch of killers to potentially "accidentally" murder four people you know to test their healing isn't thing a fanboy would be doing. And even if your right... there should probably be less extreme murdery and more subtle ways to providing your right (like frigging accidentally cut them on the hand or something). Asking for consent to be a lab rat seems like a reasonable thing to do ya know? And if Copley is such as great researcher and able to figuring out people (i.e. who the immortals are) how was he so blindsided by the fact that Merrick was a sadist, asshole. If I was able to give the greatest scientific discovered in the history of mankind to someone... I would sure as heck to do some research on them to make sure they did had both the ability and morality to use it for good as I wanted.
Also some of the setup doesn't make sense
Why are the immortals roughing it so much... living in abandoned churches and caves? They are hundreds of years old, getting paid large amounts of money for their unique skill sets and they all seem to be living extremely spartan/frugal lives. Like that cave had an original Rodin and a some nice painting just rusting/getting mildew.
Why don't they have more resources available to them? Basically if they did... there wouldn't be a story. I would be living as a stealth multi-millionaire, creating a secret cult of loyal mortal underlings (Andy said she once was worshipped as a God) because yea, getting captured sucks... so send in 20 private mercs to do the job instead. I can understand not finding a ship and a dumped "treasure" back in the 1500s. But in 2000s with lots of money, underwater sonar, and submarines... along with the dreams... you could be paying people to search for that iron maiden (which would have rusted and bent and falling apart with enough sea water and continual metal fatigue from someone banging at it for 500 years).
As for digital age where everyone has their photo taken... ever try wearing a disguise instead of sauntering around like a 6 ft tall Valykrie supermodel? I would go the Stargate "Wormhole X-treme" route and make a fake TV show or some other misinformation campaign to anyone who figured it out would be dismissed as crackpot fans who have lost touch with reality.
Merrick is a cringeworthy comic book vill... (ah... jokes on me). I mean even Copley literally says something like "wtf, why are you being a sadist, you can get tissue samples without torturing them." Why does a pharmaceutical CEO have what is essentially a private army? Why is he such a sadist? The movie never actually shows him doing anything evil before encountering the immortals. The worse he's admitted to doing is killing a thousands of lab mice in order to create an actual cure/treatment for cancer that works. Heck, I would easily take that deal and sleep easy a night... how did he go from killing the mice (in reality all test animals are typically killed after an experiment), to sadistically stabbing people with a letter opener? And why the heck did he decide to challenge the immortals at the end with the gun and an axe, how stupid was that? Why not be like all Dr Roboniks and fly away promising future revenge once you've regathered resources?
Copley is also a huge question. He starts off by hiring a lot mercenaries to essentially try and murder the immortals... to prove that they are immortal. Then he flips and admits he's their greatest fan-boy. If you are so interested in helping the world... perhaps hiring a bunch of killers to potentially "accidentally" murder four people you know to test their healing isn't thing a fanboy would be doing. And even if your right... there should probably be less extreme murdery and more subtle ways to providing your right (like frigging accidentally cut them on the hand or something). Asking for consent to be a lab rat seems like a reasonable thing to do ya know? And if Copley is such as great researcher and able to figuring out people (i.e. who the immortals are) how was he so blindsided by the fact that Merrick was a sadist, asshole. If I was able to give the greatest scientific discovered in the history of mankind to someone... I would sure as heck to do some research on them to make sure they did had both the ability and morality to use it for good as I wanted.
Also some of the setup doesn't make sense
Why are the immortals roughing it so much... living in abandoned churches and caves? They are hundreds of years old, getting paid large amounts of money for their unique skill sets and they all seem to be living extremely spartan/frugal lives. Like that cave had an original Rodin and a some nice painting just rusting/getting mildew.
Why don't they have more resources available to them? Basically if they did... there wouldn't be a story. I would be living as a stealth multi-millionaire, creating a secret cult of loyal mortal underlings (Andy said she once was worshipped as a God) because yea, getting captured sucks... so send in 20 private mercs to do the job instead. I can understand not finding a ship and a dumped "treasure" back in the 1500s. But in 2000s with lots of money, underwater sonar, and submarines... along with the dreams... you could be paying people to search for that iron maiden (which would have rusted and bent and falling apart with enough sea water and continual metal fatigue from someone banging at it for 500 years).
As for digital age where everyone has their photo taken... ever try wearing a disguise instead of sauntering around like a 6 ft tall Valykrie supermodel? I would go the Stargate "Wormhole X-treme" route and make a fake TV show or some other misinformation campaign to anyone who figured it out would be dismissed as crackpot fans who have lost touch with reality.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
This seemed like it was a pilot for an original netflix series. The plot set up some obvious threads to follow, and conveniently removed the more expensive actors out of the main plot.
The ending sequence and music is going to be the opening title sequence.
Chiwetel's character Copely is a recurring role, that speaks mostly over the phone, zoom meetings and largely on his own working behind the scenes.
In mid season 1, he's going to introduce his own protoge to support the old guard team.
Andy is much in the same role, appearing in a few key episodes to train Nile, or provide some exposition while showing how she is reconnecting with humanity. She's going to pop in on the season finale for a bit, but eventually in season 4 would be written out.
"Where's andy?"
"well, she's decided to have a family"
"good for her"
In early season 2, they introduce a good immortal doctor. Who's been using his long life to heal, and continue to research and educate. She doesn't have the same draw to the "warrior" clan for some reason, and never encountered another immortal since she doesn't die violently. She thought she was just not aging. Until recently.
Especially divisive was the period acting episode where some of the characters "reminisce" of the old days. I think people still bitch about the "historical accuracy" of the episode. Lovely singing and music as we find out that they reveal they inspired some pretty interesting figures in music. Ah Freddie, you left us too soon.
The ending sequence and music is going to be the opening title sequence.
Chiwetel's character Copely is a recurring role, that speaks mostly over the phone, zoom meetings and largely on his own working behind the scenes.
In mid season 1, he's going to introduce his own protoge to support the old guard team.
Andy is much in the same role, appearing in a few key episodes to train Nile, or provide some exposition while showing how she is reconnecting with humanity. She's going to pop in on the season finale for a bit, but eventually in season 4 would be written out.
"Where's andy?"
"well, she's decided to have a family"
"good for her"
In early season 2, they introduce a good immortal doctor. Who's been using his long life to heal, and continue to research and educate. She doesn't have the same draw to the "warrior" clan for some reason, and never encountered another immortal since she doesn't die violently. She thought she was just not aging. Until recently.
Especially divisive was the period acting episode where some of the characters "reminisce" of the old days. I think people still bitch about the "historical accuracy" of the episode. Lovely singing and music as we find out that they reveal they inspired some pretty interesting figures in music. Ah Freddie, you left us too soon.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Apple fanboy 101
Ars Tribunus Militum
Imagine that a foreign army comes to your house with guns.
You shoot because you are afraid and they come inside your house and kill you.
Well, that’s what one scene in this movie describes. I am not falling for American propaganda that portrays the army as liberators of Afghanistan. Americans have killed over 31,000 civilians in Afghanistan. So they can take their nice images of American soldiers giving candy to kids and shove them up their asses.
You shoot because you are afraid and they come inside your house and kill you.
Well, that’s what one scene in this movie describes. I am not falling for American propaganda that portrays the army as liberators of Afghanistan. Americans have killed over 31,000 civilians in Afghanistan. So they can take their nice images of American soldiers giving candy to kids and shove them up their asses.
Upvote
-11
(2
/
-13)
The Director is a woman, the lead role is a woman, and it's a great action movie, Charlize Theron move better and faster than most male action-movies actors!
It's great to see this move not only because it's a good movie, but also because it will impact people's vision of the place of women in our society.
And those pretending that only men could be action-movie lead-role or that spectators won't like to see women as action actors are just proven totally wrong!
PS: since The Avengers in the 60's there should be no doubt whatsoever, but still...
It's great to see this move not only because it's a good movie, but also because it will impact people's vision of the place of women in our society.
And those pretending that only men could be action-movie lead-role or that spectators won't like to see women as action actors are just proven totally wrong!
PS: since The Avengers in the 60's there should be no doubt whatsoever, but still...
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
While I liked it overall, and Theron is amazing to watch , I have the same issue here as with a lot of action movies:
The villain is right.
Of course people like this should be studied. Of course learning about their powers is important. Fantastic medical breakthroughs would be possible. As soon as word about them leaked out, every bio researcher in the world would want to find them. The Chiwetel Eijiofor character was just a random researcher; anyone could have found them in the 2010s.
To make the pharma-bro an antagonist the moviemakers had to make him ridiculous, with his hoodied suit and his army of faceless goons. Troops like that are expensive, conspicuous, and dangerous in PR terms when they injure people, and no board of directors would stand for it. No company actually operates this way. That's the way governments operate, although here their heavily armed goons are shown giving candy to children.
In any case, Eijiofor was already able to contact the Old Guard, and could have arranged for a discreet examination at Johns Hopkins instead of setting up that ambush. His actions make no sense in terms of his character.
But that's a plot without gruesome killing scenes and so of no interest. The makers get points here for having female leads and serious gay characters, and for avoiding comic book cliches about powers, but are still bound by the action movie conventions.
The villain is right.
Of course people like this should be studied. Of course learning about their powers is important. Fantastic medical breakthroughs would be possible. As soon as word about them leaked out, every bio researcher in the world would want to find them. The Chiwetel Eijiofor character was just a random researcher; anyone could have found them in the 2010s.
To make the pharma-bro an antagonist the moviemakers had to make him ridiculous, with his hoodied suit and his army of faceless goons. Troops like that are expensive, conspicuous, and dangerous in PR terms when they injure people, and no board of directors would stand for it. No company actually operates this way. That's the way governments operate, although here their heavily armed goons are shown giving candy to children.
In any case, Eijiofor was already able to contact the Old Guard, and could have arranged for a discreet examination at Johns Hopkins instead of setting up that ambush. His actions make no sense in terms of his character.
But that's a plot without gruesome killing scenes and so of no interest. The makers get points here for having female leads and serious gay characters, and for avoiding comic book cliches about powers, but are still bound by the action movie conventions.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
The film was developed and produced by Skydance for theater release, with Netflix joining as a financial partner/worldwide distributor after over a year in production. It was not planned or developed as a solely streaming release.
The vast majority of pre-production was already complete with filming starting just two months after Netflix came on board.
The vast majority of pre-production was already complete with filming starting just two months after Netflix came on board.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Well if you actually watch it the fighting sequences are extremely fun and well thought out. The state of the art has advanced, by a lot.
It does lack those segues and richness that Highlander had. But it is not miserably burdened by 80’s hair product technology either.
The other comparison would be to Underworld I think. In either case though, yeah, fun and superior to the SyFy Saturday afternoon retreads, but no actual cult hit movie. Maybe with better script writers they can take that raw talent, the same production values, and accomplish something great.
But that is also too much doom and gloom. I was extremely happy having watched this. Extraction just left me cold.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Sort of. It’s in Development Hell, and has been for years. Maybe not abandon ALL hope, but don’t have too much.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
There's a clear difference between disagreement and (probably) misogyny-fueled ad hominem attack.
The former usually begins with "I disagree with this review" then proceeds to explain the points the poster disagrees with and what the poster thinks about those points.
The latter ... well, that's what has been downvoted to hell in this comment section. The usage of the sexist, denigrating word "chick" doesn't help; the commenter could've used "the writer" instead, but didn't.
Plus there's the troll behavior:
A: posted something controversial
B: attempted to correct A
A: attacks B
Finally, if you think the writer is so bad that the writer deserves to be fired, there are other forums on Ars more proper than this particular comment section.
Upvote
8
(10
/
-2)
Isn't that intentional? While I disagree that he is "right" per se (the whole ends justifying the means doesn't sit well, individuals do have rights, plus it's hinted at that the gang have been down this road before, telling the researchers they won't find anything). They're looking out for themselves. They're traumatised by what happened to Quynh, they think they can die and they fear a life spent in a cage. But Copley and Booker actually agree that this research is a great idea (it's just pharma-bro is an asshat).
Also, Copley wasn't just a random researcher, the whole thing was that he was a well connected, well funded (he worked for the pharma company) former CIA agent. You're right, the US military should be extremely well aware at this point that they have a soldier who should have died that didn't, but action movie liberties. It's one of the smaller problems when you think too hard about a film like this (I'm still annoyed at how many sequels they're trying to setup at once. I can see at least 4 different plotlines and that bullet Andy shot on the plane. Sure, tell the pilot to play dead, she still put a freaking bullet into the plane somewhere and the pilot wasn't immortal).
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I see where you're coming from with The Old Guard missing something to be an excellent movie, but nevertheless I thoroughly enjoyed it.
You're missing an important bit about the movie, though: it has the most romantic, humorous, and yet strong declaration of love of any recent movie.
"What, is he your boyfriend?"
You're missing an important bit about the movie, though: it has the most romantic, humorous, and yet strong declaration of love of any recent movie.
"What, is he your boyfriend?"
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
No, the villain is not right in this case.
It would be different if they had consented to be studied and were still able to be free, and it was an exercise of their consent to be studied. But instead they were taken by force, held against their will, tortured via the 'supposed' medical procedures, subjected to degrading and inhumane conditions by being held captive never to be free again and then when all used up and no longer needed would be murdered when they could no longer 'heal'. That is not scientific study no matter how much one thinks people like this should be studied. The Nazi's did all this in WWII, they called it 'scientific study' too. You think this villain was right?
Should people like this be studied? Science would want to study them, but should they be studied because science thinks they should be? If you had a special something-something in your blood that could cure a disease, would you want to be subjected to the 'we will and should' of science instead of the 'would you consent' decision that is yours inherently?
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
How is his comment misogynistic? It is abusive for sure, but there is nothing to suggest that misogyny is the motive. It may just be an expression of annoyance and extreme disagreement. Exactly the same sentence can be used for any male author.
Upvote
-12
(1
/
-13)
I think piercings always seem to get a pass from a continuity perspective, but I do agree with you. I feel the same way when I catch the occasional episode of Supergirl.
Are kryptonite studs standard issue at the Piercing Pagoda? But nevertheless, it's still fun and fine.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Congratulations on your work of fiction.
It would be great if you could read because I never commented or agreed with that the writer should be fired nor did I use the word "chick" nor did I do any of what you accuse now, and I was not defending anything anyone else said but rather just commenting on a specific aspect of "If Jennifer Ouellette likes it then it’s junk" in which there is some truth. But thank goodness people don't write to please you.
Upvote
-9
(0
/
-9)
I think piercings always seem to get a pass from a continuity perspective, but I do agree with you. I feel the same way when I catch the occasional episode of Supergirl.
Are kryptonite studs standard issue at the Piercing Pagoda? But nevertheless, it's still fun and fine.
One of the reboots of Superman actually addressed this kind of issue, "how does Superman shave?" They had him bouncing his heat vision off of a curved piece of metal from his life pod to burn the hair off (bad time to have a super sense of smell I imagine). Personally I'd have gone with "Kryptonians don't have facial hair", but I guess they like to give him a beard from time to time.
Anyhow, there are workarounds if the writers are feeling particularly pedantic.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I think piercings always seem to get a pass from a continuity perspective, but I do agree with you. I feel the same way when I catch the occasional episode of Supergirl.
Are kryptonite studs standard issue at the Piercing Pagoda? But nevertheless, it's still fun and fine.
One of the reboots of Superman actually addressed this kind of issue, "how does Superman shave?" They had him bouncing his heat vision off of a curved piece of metal from his life pod to burn the hair off (bad time to have a super sense of smell I imagine). Personally I'd have gone with "Kryptonians don't have facial hair", but I guess they like to give him a beard from time to time.
Anyhow, there are workarounds if the writers are feeling particularly pedantic.
I thought the heat vision- mirror thing was a cheap way to get out of answering the question. If, being a kryptonian on earth, his heat vision is able to remove (shave) 'impenetrable' hair then why doesn't the heat vision of villain kryptonians harm him when they have the same powers as he does under the same earth conditions?
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I think piercings always seem to get a pass from a continuity perspective, but I do agree with you. I feel the same way when I catch the occasional episode of Supergirl.
Are kryptonite studs standard issue at the Piercing Pagoda? But nevertheless, it's still fun and fine.
One of the reboots of Superman actually addressed this kind of issue, "how does Superman shave?" They had him bouncing his heat vision off of a curved piece of metal from his life pod to burn the hair off (bad time to have a super sense of smell I imagine). Personally I'd have gone with "Kryptonians don't have facial hair", but I guess they like to give him a beard from time to time.
Anyhow, there are workarounds if the writers are feeling particularly pedantic.
I thought the heat vision- mirror thing was a cheap way to get out of answering the question. If, being a kryptonian on earth, his heat vision is able to remove (shave) 'impenetrable' hair then why doesn't the heat vision of villain kryptonians harm him when they have the same powers as he does under the same earth conditions?
Or at least burn his hair off. Bald Superman!
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
For contrast take her parts in The Devil's Advocate (1997) or Men of Honor (2000) and compare them to Gringo (2018) . . . or almost anything made since 2001. The woman can act. Since she's a woman (and our society is still quite sexist), it will be interesting to see how much longer the action genre will allow her to continue (Atomic Blonde 4)? But I have little doubt that we will see her as the protagonist in movies for the next two decades. Bond villain, Marvel/DC, Star Wars (probably not), female President/Prime Minister (yes she's been a candidate), CEO . . . you name it. Regardless, she is THE alpha female of film.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
"Cyrus Jones, 1810 to 1913
Made his great-grandchildren believe you can live to a hundred and three
Well a hundred and three is forever when you're just a little kid so...
Cyrus Jones lived forever."
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
Meh. I'd watch a sequel, but I wasn't awed. The villain in particular I found unbelievable.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Wow, quickly resorting to an ad hominem attack.
I must've pressed the right buttons on you, troll.
Edit: Into the ignore list you go...
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
The person whose comment Secondfloor agreed with, Hyperionic (not Hyperioc), used the sexist and denigrating word "chick".
Hyperionic could've used the neutral word "the writer", or even a neutral insult "this clown of a writer", but no, he just HAD to use a sexist word.
For many, that's a red flag of misogyny in action.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
i thought this was so much better than Extraction. I just wanted Extraction to end so I could be done with it, but I really enjoyed The Old Ones. Not saying it's the greatest movie ever, but I found it enjoyable, as opposed to Extraction.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)