Main image
22nd January
2009
written by Tony
I know I normally put a picture from the movie up, but this is so much... better.

I know I normally put a picture from the movie up, but this is so much... better.

Ah Netflix, allower of guilt-free movie watching. I know in my heart that there is no way I would ever have seen this movie if it wasn't for "free." As it is, this little gem showed up in our mailbox the other night and both Steph and  I knew it was going to be delightful. The premise is this: unlikeable guy who has no direction in life and a bitchy girlfriend who has made a cuckold of him with his best friend gets caught up in a ploy run by an association of professional assassins formerly known as "The Weavers" (lame) but who now go by the much more kick-ass "The Fraternity" even though a woman is one of their top guns. So anyway, he has some sort of poorly conceived adrenaline-related time slowing ability and they need him to kill some people. Enough said. The premise is thinner than Angelina Jolie's arms and the characterization is almost non-existent. It pains me to say it, but this movie was just mediocre. It wasn't a so bad it's good kind of thing, it wasn't even so bad as to be unwatchable, it just wasn't anything, including good. Jolie's character exists solely to be the bad-ass gun toting eye candy, as she receives little dimension beyond being a very capable assassin and her relationship with Mr. Young Gun never really gets developed, at all. This is too bad, considering she is not attractive at all, so the whole eye candy thing is kind of out the window. Maybe if she gained, say 30 pounds and ditched the nasty tattoos we could talk. In any case, Wesley (that is, indeed, the name of our protagonist) undergoes a massive transformation from office lackey to James Bond Jr. in about 5 weeks. At which point he doesn't feel pain, is a deadly shot, can fight and, oh yes, curve the flight of bullets. Indeed. So whatever, one or two predictable plot twists later we come to the finish of a movie that was so thoroughly uninspired that I can't even be bothered to really give it a proper mocking. 2 out of 5

4 Comments

  1. taryn
    01/22/2009

    PUPPYYYYYYY!!!!
    That puppy is seriously wanted. By me. Just ask Steph for my address!

  2. taryn
    01/22/2009

    Also, now that i’ve properly read the post (sorry, i was distracted by the picture!) i should probably write a content-appropriate comment. Umm… i’ve not seen this film (thankfully), but i have heard that based on its success at the box office there’s a sequel planned. I’m still having a hard time believing James McAvoy was in an action movie, let alone a credible “James Bond Jr.” type. Why?? Why?!! Does your proper acting (Last King of Scotland, Atonement) not pay well enough? Then just do more Becoming Jane-type stuff!! grrr.

  3. Ben
    01/22/2009

    oh how very unsurprising. Wasn’t Morgan Freeman in this movie? If Morgan Freeman can’t make a movie worth watching theres something seriously wrong.

  4. 01/23/2009

    @ Taryn: it’s totally ok that you were distracted by Emmy’s cuteness. It was really quite unfair for Tony to have put that picture up, because she is irresistibly adorable in it (warning: don’t click on it and make it bigger… it just magnifies her cuteness!). But yeah, the movie was pretty bad and James McAvoy wasn’t even convincing as the action guy, and Jolie really needs to eat at least 12 sandwiches. I actually think it would probably have made a better video game than a movie. Needless to say, they should not make a sequel of this crap.

    @ Ben: Morgan Freeman WAS in this movie, and he did NOT make it worthwhile to watch. He is way more awesome in the Batman flicks.

Leave a Reply