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
saw this. If Charlize Theron had not been in it I would not have bothered now but may have later if I was bored.
The action violence scenes were ok, but you can tell they are along the lines of what has developed as 'softer' action violence scenes that seems to be sweeping the entertainment industry. It used to be action violence scenes like in this movie lingered a little more on the visceral and tried to mimic realism but, for example, in this movie the wounds do not look as realistically visceral as the entertainment industry used to do. For example, someone gets shot in the head and there is this neat little hole and they never show an exit wound channel and the 'blood' looks most times more like it was spread on in a finger paining exercise rather then actually from the wound - this is not what it looks like in real life after getting drilled by full magazines being emptied and what Hollywood used to do.
Back story was not a big thing for me with this movie. Its enough for the time frame of the movie to know they had lived a long time and a few traumatic events they still think about in present day one of which appears a little after the main movie ends. The back story they do present supports the movie well considering they only needed to support the immortal thing and how they can stop being mortal which are two key points of the movie. The ending of the movie is screaming franchise and 'SEQUEL!'. So maybe this is just an introduction and more development in a sequel. If you are expecting a lot of back story you will be disappointed because its obviously not structured for a lot of back story and you don't get loads of back story.
It begins with the failed mission and picks up from there with how they got to the failed mission to begin with and then develops from there towards a somewhat obvious conclusion you see coming. The only real surprise happens after the main movie ends and sets the stage for more back story and continuing adventures in a sequel (if there is one). This also was one of the few back story things they touched on in the movie.
They aren't really immortal as in living forever. There is a point where their wounds/injuries don't heal any more and they can die, they keep telling us this in the movie and its told in the little back story they did show us and they tell a few times that all things die even them. So when one of them reaches that point its not a big surprise. Four of them have lived many centuries, and when the fifth joins them she is still in her first normal life span time frame even though she has, seemingly, come back from the dead as her fellow marines think, so she has a long way to go.
I would not say its comparable to 'Extraction'. I thought 'Extraction' was not a very good movie. This is better in some aspects, but still although not a really really really great movie was more entertaining and better to me than 'Extraction', but I think that's maybe partially because I like Charlize Theron and I just enjoyed the movie too for its story idea and to be on board for a possible sequel. I kinda got a possible sequel vibe about half way through the movie, and the movie its self is the back story for a sequel.
I thought the parts did add up to the whole for what the movie was. The writing was good, and the plot is clear and stays true to what the movie is. A few of the characters were a little too superficial but after getting to the end I can understand why as it appears this movie is an introduction to franchise sequels and further character development in those for plot and story support is a good bet if they happen.
I like Charlize Theron. She has become a powerhouse in the movie industry so can pick and choose as she likes. Sometimes they probably call her and say 'hey, wanna be in our movie?' but its become more of her calling them and saying "I am gonna be in your movie" and they say "yes ma'am". You know you've made it in the Hollywood when they start writing parts with you in mind which is apparently what happened here for Charlize Theron.
The action violence scenes were ok, but you can tell they are along the lines of what has developed as 'softer' action violence scenes that seems to be sweeping the entertainment industry. It used to be action violence scenes like in this movie lingered a little more on the visceral and tried to mimic realism but, for example, in this movie the wounds do not look as realistically visceral as the entertainment industry used to do. For example, someone gets shot in the head and there is this neat little hole and they never show an exit wound channel and the 'blood' looks most times more like it was spread on in a finger paining exercise rather then actually from the wound - this is not what it looks like in real life after getting drilled by full magazines being emptied and what Hollywood used to do.
Back story was not a big thing for me with this movie. Its enough for the time frame of the movie to know they had lived a long time and a few traumatic events they still think about in present day one of which appears a little after the main movie ends. The back story they do present supports the movie well considering they only needed to support the immortal thing and how they can stop being mortal which are two key points of the movie. The ending of the movie is screaming franchise and 'SEQUEL!'. So maybe this is just an introduction and more development in a sequel. If you are expecting a lot of back story you will be disappointed because its obviously not structured for a lot of back story and you don't get loads of back story.
It begins with the failed mission and picks up from there with how they got to the failed mission to begin with and then develops from there towards a somewhat obvious conclusion you see coming. The only real surprise happens after the main movie ends and sets the stage for more back story and continuing adventures in a sequel (if there is one). This also was one of the few back story things they touched on in the movie.
They aren't really immortal as in living forever. There is a point where their wounds/injuries don't heal any more and they can die, they keep telling us this in the movie and its told in the little back story they did show us and they tell a few times that all things die even them. So when one of them reaches that point its not a big surprise. Four of them have lived many centuries, and when the fifth joins them she is still in her first normal life span time frame even though she has, seemingly, come back from the dead as her fellow marines think, so she has a long way to go.
I would not say its comparable to 'Extraction'. I thought 'Extraction' was not a very good movie. This is better in some aspects, but still although not a really really really great movie was more entertaining and better to me than 'Extraction', but I think that's maybe partially because I like Charlize Theron and I just enjoyed the movie too for its story idea and to be on board for a possible sequel. I kinda got a possible sequel vibe about half way through the movie, and the movie its self is the back story for a sequel.
I thought the parts did add up to the whole for what the movie was. The writing was good, and the plot is clear and stays true to what the movie is. A few of the characters were a little too superficial but after getting to the end I can understand why as it appears this movie is an introduction to franchise sequels and further character development in those for plot and story support is a good bet if they happen.
I like Charlize Theron. She has become a powerhouse in the movie industry so can pick and choose as she likes. Sometimes they probably call her and say 'hey, wanna be in our movie?' but its become more of her calling them and saying "I am gonna be in your movie" and they say "yes ma'am". You know you've made it in the Hollywood when they start writing parts with you in mind which is apparently what happened here for Charlize Theron.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
There is some truth in that. She seems to be overly generous, and somewhat biased, in a lot of her reviews. And then some of her reviews are shallow like she is very easily entertained. Then some of her reviews are like she just read something written else where and went on that and never actually saw the movie or TV show.
Sometimes she changes what actually happened or is in the movie or tv show and seems to be using what she has heard or read elsewhere. For example, the two she did recently on 'warrior nun'; In one she reviewed a trailer for the show and used what IMDB and what appears to be what another reviewer wrote. It was a waste of time and she really stretched it out. A trailer review is not a TV show or movie review by the way, its a review of what the producers wanted you to see. Then after the show aired, in the review for that she outlined some major plot points and called, and somewhat embellished, them and other things, even central to the plot, as different from what they were despite these being said and indicated multiple times in the show and it could not be missed unless you didn't actually see the show. So its like she did not see the show and went on what, suspiciously looks like, another 'reviewer' wrote mistakes and all.
I tend to think, like you on this, that "ArsTechnica’s reviews of films and tv-series tend to be rather shallow and overly positive" but this one seems a little more balanced and mostly reflected what the movie is.
I also tend to think ArsTechnica should stop doing movie and TV show reviews. Although they try really hard sometimes, overall they aren't very good at it. So maybe if they get actual professional experienced honest to goodness unbiased and critical entertainment reviewers on staff and let them do reviews... who knows.
Upvote
-15
(2
/
-17)
shes one of those 'ageless' types. But in a couple of scenes in the movie if you look very close you can see a slight bit of aging peeking through but some of that may have been makeup and intentional because they have all lived a long time and do show signs of aging (but not for their true age which would have basically been that of ancient many centuries old dust).
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
they explain this in the movie.
Basically; They are ancient and present day warriors who fight for the causes they believe in to make a difference for good in the world. That's their cause.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
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
4
(4
/
0)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
- Status