Interesting plot and a great execution. I loved the movie because first it was very entertaining, and second the message lives through the whole movie.

I don’t agree with Flor’s review simply because the base of the argument lies in the script and plot when there is much more to a movie than just that. Sure, it is probably the thing that weighs the most when evaluating a movie but if you are going to criticize the movie standing on the real world with real life rules you will end up nowhere.

The movie as Phillip says, has it’s own rules. The world created has them too and they are the same. Most of Flor’s arguments are something the likes of “I hated Superman! I mean, come on! A guy that can fly? That is impossible!”.

And since I go to the movies to be entertained, I loved it. Most of all because I think in today’s world we set our own limits too short and most of the times we are afraid to do what we really want to do in any scenario, that being personal, professional and even in our relationships.

So for that… and the Keyboard to the face, and to the “What the hell have you done this week?”…. great movie.

Still, good reviews by you two and nice website.

As I made my comparison in the original post, The Fraternity is less an assassins group and more a cult. It finally feels McAvoy’s character is ready when he says exactly what a cult wants to hear, “I don’t know who I am.” Anybody who enters into the walls of one of those compounds can surely be lied to for a thousand years, because it’s all they believe to be true. Catholicism had twisted the word of god in the dark ages for much longer than a thousand. Don’t overestimate the flock mentality that humanity many times falls into and that allows them to be easily led down the wrong path (All of Germany? Really??). Fox though believed in the true form of their discipline, through personal experience, which is what led her to make the decision she made in the end.

Now the question is did Wesley’s name really end up on the list? I think it was very much the same situation that his Father ended up in.

What have I done this week? I’ve questioned authority. I’ve thought for myself. Intensity of action and consequence simply doesn’t make up for a terrible story. If WANTED had meant to be a play between fate and independence (and if I squint really hard and turn my head a bit I can almost see that) it’s very difficult to see how it was consistent within its rules. The guy who broke the rules and was perhaps doomed to death for it…didn’t die. (Perhaps he wasn’t doomed, we only have the bad guy’s word for it, same as with the other assassins.) Instead it’s this mix of the purity and poetry of fate – but only if you accept it – and the flash and ideal of freedom – but only if you seize it. The thing is, I have to shoe-horn my appreciation for these abstractions into the movie and just let all the extra sturm und drang fly about the edges of the screen. In the end it was poorly executed.

Because it wasn’t afraid to be bold with it’s decisions. It wasn’t afraid to take what it wanted to be and be 100% of that. Like in Hong Kong cinema, the style is the substance. There was a kinetic poetry to the action. And the only way it could have been accomplished was by being so exaggerated and unbelievable. The scene in the train car that was wedged between the cliff faces had a spiritual and almost serene feel to it. It completely contrasted the action leading up to it. The fall to the water below was cleansing for the character who like many other characters before was on his “hero’s journey”.

Implausible, sure! Derivative, yes! I’ll agree with both of these sentiments.

Everything is derivative. The best movies in cinema are many times culled together from other movies. From “Kill Bill” to “Batman”, they are all stories we’ve seen before – sometimes almost plagiarized in their storytelling and directing. But how well does the new movie stick to it’s guns (honestly no pun intended). It’s own sense of visceral and visual play. A movie like “Gone in Sixty Seconds” doesn’t even attempt to try to play outside of the safety zone – I would truly call that movie derivative, predictable and cliche. “Wanted” however did stick to it’s guns and as you can see to polarizing effects. That only means it didn’t back down from it’s own vision and wasn’t afraid of going for it.

As for implausible. It’s sticks to it’s own set of rules. That’s all I ask from a movie. These are super heroes and villains, just as in “Hancock” or “Spiderman”. They have a super human gift to essentially focus and in that focus manipulate their energy.

And actually, to me it wasn’t about beating people any time they get in your way, like “Fight Club” there’s a little more going on. There whole way of life is brought down when they realize how they’ve been tricked. There’s a reason why their names came up, because the actions they take, in fact cause far to great a causalities. Fox’s choice to ram a car into the side of a train led to the death of countless people…her name came up and no one took care of it. Whether you agree with it or not, the sentiment is follow the rules of fate, breaking those rules is bad. Following fate and taking control of one’s life it seems can go hand and hand in this world.

By no means did I think the film was brilliant, but it’s a bold film and it’s a fun film. And it doesn’t have to be a work of art to be either. Luurved though? I’m not sure I agree with that sentiment either. Though I’m glad you didn’t like it, and am not shocked in the least that people don’t. Nothing wrong with that.

The acting was mediocre, the story was derivative as well as implausible (these are most unsubtle assassins EVAR) and the predictability was overwhelming. The only solution the movie offers to life’s little boots to the head is bashing each obstacle with the nearest handy object. Even Morgan Freeman looked like he needed someone off screen reminding him how much he was putting in the bank to keep going.

I’m genuinely shocked.