Check out these dream critics, who profess not to give away spoilers:
Deadline.com: video review by John Hammond
Plot: Worldwide food crises that wipes out most of humanity. Only hope for human survival is to find another planet to live on. Guess who goes on a mission to find that planet? Mathew McConaughey will boldly go where no man has gone before, sans Captain Kirk, through both a wormhole and a black hole. (Don’t really know what that means.)
Spoilers: Not really! YAY! Hammond stresses that he doesn’t want to spoil the movie. There are a couple of harmlessly tiny clips.
Bottom line: Go see it! Everything about this movie rocks. acting, plot, cinematography. And plenty of meaning: “It’s a small human drama set against” the big expanse of space. It is about connecting to each other as human beings, time and other themes.
No worries: You don’t have to know the science to understand what’s going on. (Phew!)
John Hammond Rules: He can still analyze the movie without spoilers.
Of interest: Directed by Christopher Nolan, who co-wrote this with his brother Jonathan.
Forbes Magazine: Review by Scott Mendelson
Plot: It’s all about revenge. Why? Well, first JW’s wife dies. Then his wife leaves a posthumous gift (imagine the executor of that estate), a puppy, who is later killed. Needless to say, JW is a retired killer who was living a humble life (that part I assume) and has to–nay has a moral obligation to– avenge the puppy’s death.
Spoilers: None. Although spoilers are necessary to tell how great the action is, Mendelson explains, “[t]here are no spoilers here.”
Bottom Line: Great Action flick, giving most people what they want: “to see Keanu Reeves shooting bad guys and looking good while doing it. And you will absolutely get your money’s worth.”
Oh yeah, baby.
More positives–“terrific action, engaging characters, and an interesting world….John Wick is the full package and one of the best action films of the year.”
One thing: Mendelson can’t stop talking about the movie’s “world.” He calls it “an example of successful world-building that benefits the story rather than distracting from it.” In fact, Mendelson states, it lends itself to the characters’ fates.
I believe what he is saying is that there are no superfluous scenes, such as those about past triumphs that show cool but irrelevant inventions, a là James Bond. And that the world is not another character, a là Manhattan in Woody Allen movies. Although, sometimes I think it’s a cool part of action movies, a là James Bond.
Scott Mendelson Rules: Thank you for trusting your readers to grasp the obvious. Most critics have been pointing out that this is not a deep movie full of symbolism and underlying themes. Mendelson does not.
Speaking of interesting: He explains that movies today emulate the action within video games because it is “fluid” with stops and starts, and not over-stylized, which is a good thing–or at least that’s what I think he is saying.
Great format of Forbes’ reviews: Three sections, all subtitled: 1. “Thumbnail,” one or two sentence low-down; 2. “The Box Office,” a prediction of how much money the movie will take in, prefaced by an in-depth ho-hum, enough-already analysis. Thankfully, you can skip this and go directly to 3. “The Review.”
Irony: I look a lot more deeply for meaning in a review of a movie that lacks meaning.
Irony?: but some of the review is vague.