Hunter Killer

Hunter Killer

By: Kevin Jordan

Not much below the surface.

We are almost into award-consideration season, as movies like A Star is Born and Bohemian Rhapsody start.  We are also almost into the holiday movie season, where all of the remaining blockbusters of the year stomp all over those award-chasing films.  But, we are not there yet, which is why I get to talk about the latest Gerard Butler action flick, Hunter Killer.  Discounting voice-work in the How to Train Your Dragon franchise, Butler is on a ten-year stretch of hot garbage (with the exception of Coriolanus, a movie that nobody saw or has heard of, including me).  Suffice it to say, I was ready for more when I found out he was in a submarine movie with an objectively terrible title.

As action movies go, Hunter Killer is surprisingly watchable.  I do not know much about submarines, which is probably why I enjoyed the movie.  I suspect that is why you will enjoy it as well, if you decide to give it a whirl.  There is little to quibble with regarding the action scenes and, like most submarine films, features several stressful, claustrophobic sequences where the submarine crew is one loud fart away from eating a torpedo.  That is why they do not serve burritos on subs.

You sure they still want me?

(Mild SPOILERS ahead.)

Commander Joe Glass (Butler) is trying to enjoy a nice bow-hunting trip where he has (presumably) trekked dozens of miles in the snow of northern Scotland to not shoot a trophy stag because a doe and fawn are nearby.*  So, when his phone rings (yes, a bow-hunter had his phone set to loudly ring), even the stag does not act surprised because Glass is obviously a terrible hunter.  The phone call is to task him with captaining a submarine into arctic Russian waters to discover the fate of a missing submarine (which, thanks to the opening scene, we know was sunk along with another sub from Russia).

*My movie companion for the night, who is also a bow hunter, threw the biggest bullshit card at this scene when I asked him about it.

Meanwhile, a Special Forces team of four men, led by Lt. Bill Beaman (Toby Stephens) is tasked with infiltrating a Russian submarine base to provide intelligence on the visiting Russian President Zakarin (Alexander Diachenko), who left Moscow before the submarine attack in the Arctic.  They are sent by Rear Admiral John Fisk (Common) on the advice of NSA analyst Jayne Norquist (Linda Cardellini) and the authority of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Charles Donnegan (Gary Oldman).  If this sounds like a Tom Clancy movie, that is because it is based on a book called Firing Point, written by two men who are not Tom Clancy (Don Keith and George Wallace), but definitely have framed posters of Tom Clancy on their bedroom walls.

Obligatory room-filled-with-muckety-mucks scene.

If you have seen enough submarine movies (or movies in general) to no longer get nervous at the mention of acoustic sensors, mines, or phrases like “no American sub has ever sailed those waters,” you will notice how shallow the characters are.  The film jumps between a Pentagon operations room, the USS Arkansas (Glass’ submarine), President Zakarin’s situation in the Russian sub base, and the Black-Ops team.  Between all of those, that is nine characters, and that is before we get to another Russian sub captain (Michael Nyquvist), the Russian Defense Minister (Mikhail Gorevoy), and the command crew of the Arkansas, including Glass’ angry-for-no-reason executive officer Brian Edwards (Carter MacIntyre).  It is no surprise that none of them are developed beyond name, rank, and key attribute, especially when you consider that the real point of the film is to display some sweet, sweet giant metal cylinder action.

There are so-o-o-o-o many people in there.

You might also notice that nearly all of the setups in the beginning of the movie are completely forgotten about or ignored by the end of the film.  The most egregious example is how a big deal is made of the fact that Glass rose to command as an enlisted sailor, but this fact is only used by Glass to give a speech to his crew at the beginning of the film to let them know that they are, in fact, sailors on an American submarine.  But that fact sure does piss off XO Edwards, who, if this movie were depicting anything resembling reality, would have been relieved of duty by Glass on at least three different occasions and probably confined to his quarters (if not the brig) for gross insubordination.

For me, the biggest flaw in this movie is that Gary Oldman is in it at all, designated as the Stupid Chief, delivering a performance that is best described as “that could literally have been anyone.”  And, not just any chief, but the chiefiest of the Joint Chiefs.  For much of the film, my friend and I both expected him to turn out as a co-conspirator with the Russian villain because nothing he said or did made any sense.  And because, you know, it’s Gary Oldman. But he just barked dumb epithets and chief-y things and appeared to also want WWIII to happen.  He even scoffed when the President of the United States decided to enact both Donnegan’s plan (DEPLOY EVERYTHING!!!) and Fisk and Norquist’s plan (the middle parts of The Hunt for Red October and Clear and Present Danger), which might be the most sensible decision by a fictional President in the history of film.

Sir. The Academy is calling. They want their Oscar back.

Really, though, we should consider it a win that this movie was not hot garbage.  It satisfies any action fix you were looking for, and we do not have to sit through another over-hammed performance from Butler because he was trying to compensate for a shitty character (the emotional range displayed by Glass went from man-reads-newspaper to man-folds-newspaper-and-puts-it-in-the-recycle-bin).  If anything, you get a decent novelty death in which a near-death character sacrifices himself by simultaneously flipping the bird and removing the pins on two grenades.  Or, you can laugh at the fact that the main character is named after the crappiest boxer from Mike Tyson’s Punchout.  Either way, I can honestly say that, after watching this film, I am ready for some Oscar-bait.

Rating: Ask for half of your money back, but do not ask if a submarine can turn ninety degrees in less than twenty feet.  It is that kind of movie.

John Wick

By: Kevin Jordan



When I walked out of the theater at the Mall of America, there was this girl surveying people about the movie they just watched.  Here is how that conversation went:

Her: Did you just come out of a movie?
Me (thinking: I just walked out of the theater, what do you think?)
Me: Yes.
Her: What movie did you just see?
Me: John Wick.
Her: Would you mind answering some questions about it?
Me: (smiling like an insane person) I’d be happy to.
Her: On a scale from one to five, five being the best, how would you rate this movie?
Me: Zero.
Her: (incredulously) Really?!
Me: Yes, it was that bad.
Her: Why was it that bad?
Me: I generally prefer my movies to have some modicum of a plot.
Her: Would you recommend this movie to your friends?
Me: …
Her: Of course not, since you gave it a zero.
Me: You got it.
Her: Would you be willing to sign up for emails for future free movie tickets?
Me: I don’t live here.
Her: Ok. Thanks and come again.
Me (thinking: I don’t live here.)

I wasn’t really sure if I was going to write a review of John Wick, but on Monday I read that it had an 86% favorable rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  That is not a typo; 86% of critics liked a movie whose entire plot is “Keanu Reeves slaughters scores of men because one guy stole his car and killed his puppy.”  And I’m not talking about back-handed positive reviews; the vast majority of them were glowing reviews with ratings of three to four stars out of four, or B+’s or A-‘s, or eight or higher out of ten.  I’ve been reviewing movies for a long enough time that when I think a movie is complete shit, the majority of other critics do too.  So, of course I decided to write a review, but since there isn’t much to say about a movie that is nothing more than a series of choreographed fight scenes, I thought I’d read some of those favorable reviews and ridicule those critics.  And, boy, they didn’t disappoint me.

(Note: Every one of these reviews can be found via Rotten Tomatoes.)

Richard Corliss, Time Magazine – “Quibbles aside, John Wick is the smartest display of the implacable but somehow ethical Reeves character since the 2008 Street Kings.”

Is it really considered ethical if a person murders more than 80 people when only three of them wronged him?  And, over only a stolen car and dead puppy?  Maybe Mr. Corliss doesn’t know what the words “smartest” and “ethical” actually mean.  Or “quibbles”, for that matter.

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone – “I know, it sounds basic to the point of brainless.  Don’t let that discourage you.”

Do let that discourage you.  Are you ready to advise your friends to spend $10 or more to be brainless for two hours?  Some friend you are.

James Berardinelli, Reel Reviews – “John Wick is a rousing action thriller of the sort rarely encountered in theaters these days.”

This is how the review begins!  (1) This movie is not rousing unless by rousing he means roughly one dead body per minute of running time.  (2) Does “every couple of weeks” still count as “rarely”?  Fury is less than two weeks old and The Equalizer just a month old.  Shit, The Equalizer is essentially the same movie, except its lead is slightly older and slightly blacker.

Mr. Berardinelli continues – “There isn’t much of a plot, but that’s often the case with revenge-based tales. Movies of this sort aren’t about narrative depth, they’re about taking a hero through an increasingly difficult series of bad guys until he comes face-to-face with the Big Boss.”

In other words, this movie is a plotless video game that you don’t even get to play.

One more from Berardinelli – “My biggest gripe (and it’s not a big one) with John Wick‘s presentation is the prologue flash-forward which adds nothing to the narrative progression while telling us pretty much how things are going to end.”

That’s your biggest gripe?  Not the complete lack of story?  Not the complete lack of character development?  Not that in a movie trying to be a throwback to 80’s action flicks there isn’t a single female breast exposed?  Or even a naked butt cheek of either sex?  This guy’s bar is set so low the only way you’d know it existed is if you tripped over it.

Forrest Wickman, Slate – “The laconic screenplay stays away from high-minded dialogue. (The two lines that got the biggest laughs at my showing were both “Oh.”) Instead, it relies on visual storytelling, as when the killing of Wick’s dog is crosscut with flashbacks to the death of his wife, to show us Wick sees these events essentially the same way: as evidence of an unjust world.”

Ok, technically he’s right, but this movie doesn’t even feature low-minded dialogue, as evidenced by Mr. Wickman himself, when his only memorable quote from the movie is “Oh.”  There is also no visual storytelling since there is no story and nothing ever indicates Wick is motivated to correct injustice.  In fact, the opposite is conveyed, in that he is a retired mob killer/enforcer and he sees the killing of his dog as the rekilling of his wife.  He’s not dishing out punishment to correct Mr. Wickman’s imaginary injustice; he’s out to kill the guy that interrupted his grieving (and kill pretty much everyone else as well).

Scott, Three Movie Buffs – “On the few occasions when he does stop, the story wobbles a bit. The worst cliche in the film happens when the head of the Russian mafia captures Wick for a short time. Despite the fact that Wick has proven to be possibly the deadliest man on the planet, instead of killing him right away, the mob chieftain decides to talk to him for a while and then, in the best tradition of James Bond villains, walk away when he wants Wick killed, which for some unexplained reason is to be by suffocation instead of a quick bullet to the head. The mobster then follows this stupidity up with another stupid move at the film’s climax, just when everything has been settled.”

It’s impossible not to notice how idiotic this scene is.  Seriously, how does this shit still appear in movies?  The head mobster reminisces earlier in the movie about how he once saw Wick kill three guys with a pencil and how Wick “…isn’t the boogeyman; he’s the guy you send to kill the fucking boogeyman.”  Didn’t it occur to him that Wick just might escape handcuffs, a chair, and just two henchmen?

Scott continues – “If you’re a fan of action movies, this one is almost impossible not to like.”

Hold on, Scott.  You just told us that the film contains one of the dumbest tropes/clichés of action movies, plus that the story “wobbles a bit” when the action breaks (“wobbles” is a polite way of saying sits on its own nutsack and falls off a ledge) – how can this movie be almost impossible not to like?

Louise Keller, Urban Cinefile – “The script is clever in that we slowly get to understand the code by which everyone lives. There are rules and protocols including special waste disposal teams who arrive on call, to efficiently remove bodies and all signs of carnage – for the price of a gold coin.”

At no point do we ever get to understand the code by which everyone lives.  There is no code.  The closest thing we get to a code is in the hotel where John stays where “nobody is allowed to conduct business on its grounds.”  That’s it.  There are no rules or protocols.  The “special waste disposal team” is not special at all (nor clever or even unique).  In fact, they serve no purpose to the movie or “story” at all, considering the two places they clean up are never seen again.  Piling on is the fact that the police literally see the freshly killed bodies in John’s home and do nothing more than wish John a good evening.  The clean-up crew could have fed the bodies into a mulcher on John’s front lawn while making small talk with the cops and the movie would not change in the slightest.

Cynthia Fuchs, PopMatters – “John Wick isn’t any of that: he’s a veteran, a retired super-assassin of such renown that only his name need be mentioned for hard-faced killers and kingpins to reveal just the slightest quiver of concern…It also offers you a chance to feel smart about the genre…

Jordan Hoffman, The Guardian – “What Allen’s bratty-ass punk Iosef didn’t realize was that John Wick used to be the top hit-man for his father Viggo (Michael Nyqvist).”

So, if John Wick is so renowned, how is it that the kingpin’s own adult son and his son’s two lackeys have never heard of John Wick even though Wick has only been retired for five years?  Did dad seriously never scare his idiot son (yes, his dad feels this way about his son) with stories of the guy who could kill the boogeyman with a pencil?  Did dad seriously never introduce his son to John even though his son would presumably be taking over the business and John was their best killer?  Does dad secretly want his son to die?  Your guess is as good as mine, but none of them will make you feel smart.

Chris Swain, Examiner – Title of review: “One of the best action films of 2014.”

“Unfortunately the film is very basic and that may be a red flag for some. “John Wick” is an at-surface-level kind of film without a lot of depth. It’s a simple revenge story where the action is supposed to outweigh any other shortcomings. The dialogue is extremely lacking at times and the story is a little weak.  Another feeble moment is the big fight scene that the film builds up so much, which has a beyond anticlimactic conclusion.”

No – Popeye was a little weak when he didn’t eat his spinach.  John Wick’s story is a limp dick that no amount of Viagra or Cialis could ever shore up.  More importantly, how can John Wick be one of the best action films of the year while it is very basic without a lot of depth, contains extremely lacking dialogue and a feeble conclusion, and uses action to outweigh other shortcomings?  Doesn’t that describe a movie like Gangster Squad, which has a 32% Rotten Tomatoes score?  When Chris Swain saw X-Men: Days of Future Past or Guardians of the Galaxy or Edge of Tomorrow (you know, actually great action films) did he just pee all over himself in ecstasy?

Bruce Ingram, Chicago Sun-Times – ““John Wick” doesn’t offer much in the way of a plot. It’s a standard-issue revenge thriller, basically, about a reformed assassin who breaks out his old hit-man kit for personal reasons. But that just means there’s not much story to get in the way when Mr. Wick decides to uncork some retribution.”

Yeah, don’t you hate it when story gets in the way of telling a story?  I mean, who needs that shit?  I’d also like to point out that Wick isn’t a reformed assassin, he’s retired.  A reformed assassin doesn’t go on a killing spree over a puppy and a ’69 Mustang; he goes to therapy to talk it out and probably just buys a new dog.  Well, maybe a reformed redneck assassin goes on a killing spree, but not a normal reformed assassin.

Stephanie Merry, Washington Post – “Even his old boss calls him the Bogeyman, because when you need to off the Bogeyman, you call John Wick.”

This bugged me throughout the entire movie.  The boss makes a point of telling his son that Wick is NOT the boogeyman, then calls him the boogeyman for the rest of the film.  Maybe he was distracted by the subtext featuring goofy comic book font of certain words when he spoke in Russian.  I know I was.

Merry continues – “The story, especially toward the end, is a lot less important than those fight sequences. But early on, smart, funny scenes attempt to answer questions other action movies don’t address. For example: How do our invincible heroes navigate car chases so ably? In this case, we see John Wick practicing his skills amid obstacles in a parking lot. And what happens to all those dead bodies? Here, there’s a jaunty cleanup crew.  But John Wick has a more interesting story and better fights than most…”

There’s a lot wrong with these few sentences, so let’s just hit them one by one.

(1) The story should never be less important, let alone a lot less important, than fight sequences ever.  This is not Street Fighter.

(2) Has anyone ever wondered about the hero’s driving skills when that hero is a highly trained assassin?  If the answer to that is yes, you were probably shaken as a baby.

(3) Wick isn’t practicing in a parking lot; he’s practicing on a runway.  Where the fuck are you parking when you go to the airport?

(4) Who cares what happens to the bodies?  If you don’t give a shit about the story over fight sequences, how can you possibly give a shit about proper housecleaning?

(5) No and no.

Chris Nashawaty, Entertainment Weekly – “And the screenplay by Derek Kolstad (2012’s The Package) is a marvelously rich and stylish feat of pulpy world-building…They’ve taken a broken clock and lovingly restored it with Swiss timing and precision.”

Mr. Nashawaty is clearly vying for Hollywood shill of the year with this absurd quote.  I know EW openly whores itself out to the studios, but this is a new low even for them.

Scott Mendelson, Forbes – “In an era when some of the best old-school action goes the DTV route (think Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning),…”

“What could have been a generic “reformed hit man takes vengeance after a personal loss” story is enlivened both by the quality of acting and action (more on that later), but by the rich world that has been created.”

“John Wick is the real deal. It is a terrific action picture, filled with strong performances by a game cast, along with superb action set-pieces and a genuinely interesting world to boot.”

There are many ways to tell when someone is totally full of shit, but none are as obvious as a movie review appearing in a financial magazine and an author claiming Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning is one of the best old-school action movies out there.  Nature invented syphilis for guys like him.

Neil Miller, Film School Rejects – “Even better, John Wick also sports an interesting premise and a surprisingly sharp bit of world-building not normally seen in your average shoot ‘em up.”

Okay, that’s several times now these people have cited great world-building.  Either my brain quit during this movie or these people watched a completely different movie than I did.  The world-building I saw, at best, hinted at an underground world.  This movie would have been far more interesting had they actually developed any (ANY!!) of that world’s characters or locations, but the action never stops long enough for any of that to happen.  We know there are assassins (Adrianne Palicki, Willem Dafoe), we know there is a Russian mob and crime syndicate, we know that Mayhem from the All-State commercials (Dean Winters) is completely wasted, we know there is a special hotel where Ian McShane drinks cocktails and Lance Reddick tends the desk, and we know they use gold coins that look like those chocolate covered coins you get for Easter every year.  We know nothing else; no explanations of any of those things.  That’s not world building, that’s throwing shit at a wall and not caring why anything sticks.

Tom Russo, Boston Globe – “We’d be up for seeing John Wick get pulled back in again, but with good cause.”

We are all doomed.

The thing that stood out among all of these reviews (besides the insipidness) was they all loved the choreography and that was enough to forgive everything else in the movie.  Except, these same people trashed Michael Bay’s flicks even though nobody does special effects and visuals like Bay and at least Bay makes attempts at telling a story beyond “guy kills everyone in sight.”  So, again I ask – WTF?

Rating: Apparently, if all you want is near non-stop killing and action, it’s worth your money.  If you care about any other component of film-making, you will want all of your money back and a survey-girl to talk to.