|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Oct 15, 2017 3:17:57 GMT
Quite good action/thriller movie. Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan both in excellent form.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 15, 2017 16:05:39 GMT
Brosnan is a lot more fun as an actor since leaving the James Bond series. I wonder why Jackie Chan's not done so much anymore outside of the Kung Fu Panda movies and even those waste him.
|
|
Peter B. Parker
Sophomore
Watch the hands, not the mouth
@babygroot
Posts: 853
Likes: 411
|
Post by Peter B. Parker on Oct 15, 2017 16:37:01 GMT
Haven't seen it yet, but I've heard good things, particularly from Cr1tiKal, who rated this higher than Blade Runner 2049 on his moist meter.
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 16, 2017 8:12:46 GMT
Saw it, I liked it because I love Chan and his performance is one of his best. Brosnan was good as well, someone on reddit pointed out that he looks just like Seaon Connery in the movie, now thats funny. I do wish Chan had more screentime actually, the whole middle part of the movie becomes a political thriller starring Pierce. Still liked it tho, it was nice to see Jackie do a serious action movie, not one that has lots of comedy.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 23, 2017 17:58:48 GMT
Quite good action/thriller movie. Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan both in excellent form. Surprisingly good movie. I saw the trailer and thought, "Jackie Chan's Taken." But instead of a mindless actioner (which I would've been fine with) it was a sort of political thriller featuring aging action heroes in parallel stories that converged somehow. I feel like it was two different scripts that were melded together (which can be a disaster) and it all came together fantastically. Take Chan's character out of the film and the plot resolution would've been identical, the only difference would be who got to the terrorists first. It's a film that makes its villains complicated, its heroes flawed and the authorities competent (if not completely altruistic-- in other words, real people) instead of bumbling idiots, corrupt goons or antagonistic blowhards. The villains have genuine motivations and every supporting character has depth. There aren't any mustache twirlers here, and if anything Brosnan is more gray than black as far as 'big bads' go. Loved the reveal about Chan's character's past as the film went along and the twists kept coming yet never felt cheap as the plot was resolved. In a lot of ways it's arguable that Brosnan and not Chan is the central character of the story. Again, it's like two stories unfolding at the same time and intersecting briefly without any true resolution for the parties involved. It really is a political thriller disguised as an action film, but it still featured that classic Jackie Chan flair in those action scenes. It's been a bad year for film so perhaps take it with a grain of salt when I say this is definitely one of the better movies I've seen this year.
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 23, 2017 20:28:22 GMT
Quite good action/thriller movie. Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan both in excellent form. Surprisingly good movie. I saw the trailer and thought, "Jackie Chan's Taken." But instead of a mindless actioner (which I would've been fine with) it was a sort of political thriller featuring aging action heroes in parallel stories that converged somehow. I feel like it was two different scripts that were melded together (which can be a disaster) and it all came together fantastically. Take Chan's character out of the film and the plot resolution would've been identical, the only difference would be who got to the terrorists first. It's a film that makes its villains complicated, its heroes flawed and the authorities competent (if not completely altruistic-- in other words, real people) instead of bumbling idiots, corrupt goons or antagonistic blowhards. The villains have genuine motivations and every supporting character has depth. There aren't any mustache twirlers here, and if anything Brosnan is more gray than black as far as 'big bads' go. Loved the reveal about Chan's character's past as the film went along and the twists kept coming yet never felt cheap as the plot was resolved. In a lot of ways it's arguable that Brosnan and not Chan is the central character of the story. Again, it's like two stories unfolding at the same time and intersecting briefly without any true resolution for the parties involved. It really is a political thriller disguised as an action film, but it still featured that classic Jackie Chan flair in those action scenes. It's been a bad year for film so perhaps take it with a grain of salt when I say this is definitely one of the better movies I've seen this year. I do wish it was more taken with Jackie Chan than anything else but oh well its still a good movie.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 23, 2017 20:34:19 GMT
Quite good action/thriller movie. Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan both in excellent form. Surprisingly good movie. I saw the trailer and thought, "Jackie Chan's Taken." But instead of a mindless actioner (which I would've been fine with) it was a sort of political thriller featuring aging action heroes in parallel stories that converged somehow. I feel like it was two different scripts that were melded together (which can be a disaster) and it all came together fantastically. Take Chan's character out of the film and the plot resolution would've been identical, the only difference would be who got to the terrorists first. It's a film that makes its villains complicated, its heroes flawed and the authorities competent (if not completely altruistic-- in other words, real people) instead of bumbling idiots, corrupt goons or antagonistic blowhards. The villains have genuine motivations and every supporting character has depth. There aren't any mustache twirlers here, and if anything Brosnan is more gray than black as far as 'big bads' go. Loved the reveal about Chan's character's past as the film went along and the twists kept coming yet never felt cheap as the plot was resolved. In a lot of ways it's arguable that Brosnan and not Chan is the central character of the story. Again, it's like two stories unfolding at the same time and intersecting briefly without any true resolution for the parties involved. It really is a political thriller disguised as an action film, but it still featured that classic Jackie Chan flair in those action scenes. It's been a bad year for film so perhaps take it with a grain of salt when I say this is definitely one of the better movies I've seen this year. That is pretty much what I think too. The trailer was misleading, so I was surprised (not necessarily unpleasantly, just surprised) that it was more of a political thriller than an action movie. Would you mind explaining that to me? I am not sure I understood exactly. He was born in China but fought with US Special Forces? And how and when and by whom were his oldest daughters killed exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 24, 2017 0:04:29 GMT
Surprisingly good movie. I saw the trailer and thought, "Jackie Chan's Taken." But instead of a mindless actioner (which I would've been fine with) it was a sort of political thriller featuring aging action heroes in parallel stories that converged somehow. I feel like it was two different scripts that were melded together (which can be a disaster) and it all came together fantastically. Take Chan's character out of the film and the plot resolution would've been identical, the only difference would be who got to the terrorists first. It's a film that makes its villains complicated, its heroes flawed and the authorities competent (if not completely altruistic-- in other words, real people) instead of bumbling idiots, corrupt goons or antagonistic blowhards. The villains have genuine motivations and every supporting character has depth. There aren't any mustache twirlers here, and if anything Brosnan is more gray than black as far as 'big bads' go. Loved the reveal about Chan's character's past as the film went along and the twists kept coming yet never felt cheap as the plot was resolved. In a lot of ways it's arguable that Brosnan and not Chan is the central character of the story. Again, it's like two stories unfolding at the same time and intersecting briefly without any true resolution for the parties involved. It really is a political thriller disguised as an action film, but it still featured that classic Jackie Chan flair in those action scenes. It's been a bad year for film so perhaps take it with a grain of salt when I say this is definitely one of the better movies I've seen this year. That is pretty much what I think too. The trailer was misleading, so I was surprised (not necessarily unpleasantly, just surprised) that it was more of a political thriller than an action movie. Would you mind explaining that to me? I am not sure I understood exactly. He was born in China but fought with US Special Forces? And how and when and by whom were his oldest daughters killed exactly? To be honest it didn't make a ton of sense to me either, I'd have to go back and watch it again to get the details down. I just liked that he had a troubled past that he tried to move on from but never really could. He wasn't simply a badass in retirement (like most characters in this kind of film), there was a darkness that surrounded him inside. It's tragic but it makes his character more compelling.
|
|
deeznutz
Sophomore
@deeznutz
Posts: 561
Likes: 92
|
Post by deeznutz on Oct 26, 2017 11:02:39 GMT
Worth a watch I think
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 30, 2017 1:00:11 GMT
Jackie Chan looks good.
I'll see it when I can.
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 30, 2017 1:23:16 GMT
Jackie Chan looks good. I'll see it when I can. It was nice to see Chan in a hard r revenge movie and not his usual buster keaton stuff and his performance was great!!
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 30, 2017 7:05:57 GMT
Jackie Chan looks good. I'll see it when I can. It was nice to see Chan in a hard r revenge movie and not his usual buster keaton stuff and his performance was great!! Yeah - I like the idea of Jackie Chan being in a movie where he is truly angry instead of funny. He's good enough to do a role like this.
|
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 627
Likes: 291
|
Post by Reynard on Oct 30, 2017 19:54:02 GMT
With that title I thought they are rebooting even straight-to-video Steven Seagal action flicks now...
|
|
|
Post by brandomarlon2003 on Oct 31, 2017 10:36:16 GMT
It was an excellent movie. Good action scenes and good performances by both Pierce and Jackie.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 31, 2017 22:24:54 GMT
Yeah, I've got to see this one.
Jackie looks so tragic and distraught in this movie - like I've never seen him.
He's got a good reason to use his skills to go after the murderers.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Nov 2, 2017 3:11:02 GMT
It is Chan's Taken or Edge of Darkness. He is 63 now and his ladder fighting days are over but there is still some interesting scenes. One thing that bugs me is unlike Taken or Edge of Darkness, Chan doesn't get so much screen time and it is to the point where I kinda wondered if Brosnan was the lead . I did enjoy Chan's movies in the past but it felt like I had seen this too many times. Watchable but not more than that. 5/10
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on Nov 2, 2017 5:23:54 GMT
It is Chan's Taken or Edge of Darkness. He is 63 now and his ladder fighting days are over but there is still some interesting scenes. One thing that bugs me is unlike Taken or Edge of Darkness, Chan doesn't get so much screen time and it is to the point where I kinda wondered if Brosnan was the lead . I did enjoy Chan's movies in the past but it felt like I had seen this too many times. Watchable but not more than that. 5/10 Yeah thats exactly what I thought.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Nov 7, 2017 13:03:58 GMT
I did enjoy it a lot, but also wish Chan had more screen time in it, but what bugged me was that it was sou out of time and place. IRA, in the spotlight, now? Come on. it felt so outdated. I understand its because the book was written in the nineties, when this conflict was more relevant, but dont get why they didnt make the movie be in the nineties then. I bet a lot of the audiences (if younger) couldn't even understand the bases for the conflict. And with how heavy it was on the political motives I think that was what made it less good overall.
I woul rate it 6, for those reason. But its worth seeing and Jackie has a great on screen presence as always.
|
|
madmikev40
Sophomore
@madmikev40
Posts: 914
Likes: 69
|
Post by madmikev40 on Nov 21, 2017 22:40:41 GMT
I did enjoy it a lot, but also wish Chan had more screen time in it, but what bugged me was that it was sou out of time and place. IRA, in the spotlight, now? Come on. it felt so outdated. I understand its because the book was written in the nineties, when this conflict was more relevant, but dont get why they didnt make the movie be in the nineties then. I bet a lot of the audiences (if younger) couldn't even understand the bases for the conflict. And with how heavy it was on the political motives I think that was what made it less good overall. I woul rate it 6, for those reason. But its worth seeing and Jackie has a great on screen presence as always. Well that's the enemy that was portrayed in the book as well.
|
|
madmikev40
Sophomore
@madmikev40
Posts: 914
Likes: 69
|
Post by madmikev40 on Nov 21, 2017 22:43:49 GMT
Surprisingly good movie. I saw the trailer and thought, "Jackie Chan's Taken." But instead of a mindless actioner (which I would've been fine with) it was a sort of political thriller featuring aging action heroes in parallel stories that converged somehow. I feel like it was two different scripts that were melded together (which can be a disaster) and it all came together fantastically. Take Chan's character out of the film and the plot resolution would've been identical, the only difference would be who got to the terrorists first. It's a film that makes its villains complicated, its heroes flawed and the authorities competent (if not completely altruistic-- in other words, real people) instead of bumbling idiots, corrupt goons or antagonistic blowhards. The villains have genuine motivations and every supporting character has depth. There aren't any mustache twirlers here, and if anything Brosnan is more gray than black as far as 'big bads' go. Loved the reveal about Chan's character's past as the film went along and the twists kept coming yet never felt cheap as the plot was resolved. In a lot of ways it's arguable that Brosnan and not Chan is the central character of the story. Again, it's like two stories unfolding at the same time and intersecting briefly without any true resolution for the parties involved. It really is a political thriller disguised as an action film, but it still featured that classic Jackie Chan flair in those action scenes. It's been a bad year for film so perhaps take it with a grain of salt when I say this is definitely one of the better movies I've seen this year. That is pretty much what I think too. The trailer was misleading, so I was surprised (not necessarily unpleasantly, just surprised) that it was more of a political thriller than an action movie. Would you mind explaining that to me? I am not sure I understood exactly. He was born in China but fought with US Special Forces? And how and when and by whom were his oldest daughters killed exactly? Book Spoiler In the book the Ch1naman he was a Kit Carson Scout, a former Viet Cong sapper who defected to America & the Irish terrorists thought he was of Chinese heritage hence the book name.
|
|