Delayed Reaction: Terminal

Premise: Margot Robbie and some men play hitmen working around a train terminal at night. They all have secrets.

There's a style of crime movie that filmmakers keep trying to crack. It's the dirty, never fully serious crime movie, full of huge characters. Guy Ritchie made his name on these. Smokin' Aces was the first time I was really aware of it. John Wick revitalized it by making it a sort of meta-comedy. Hotel Artemis flopped hard doing it last year. I could open the definition up to include the likes of Sin City, Shoot 'em Up, and Free Fire among many, many others. I see the appeal. It's easy to sign actors when the only direction they'll be given is "bigger". You can mask budget limitations by drenching everything in primary colors and setting it at night. So, even when the movies lose money (they usually do), no one gets that angry, and the promise of a long rental life eases the pain.

I had no idea Terminal was one of these movies. Literally all I knew about the movie was that Margot Robbie looked cool in the poster and Hulu kept promoting it in my suggestions. The entire thought process that led to me watching this was "I like Margot Robbie. I wonder why I haven't even heard of this movie?" I'm no closer to the answer, but I liked Robbie in it. I don't think I've ever seen her have more fun in a role. Maybe Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad, but I'm docking a few points there because those short shorts couldn't've been comfortable. Birds of Prey is coming up, and it will probably supplant this movie, based on the trailers. This movie is full of people like Robbie, Simon Pegg, Dexter Fletcher, and - yes - Mike Meyers really hamming it up. The movie is lit in such strong blues and reds that I think they deserve a character credit. It's the kind of thing you'd expect from a second unit director trying to make a splash with his first feature (And, wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what this movie is).

This was a great drunk watch on a Friday night. The plot is convoluted in a way that doesn't appreciate how little the audience should be expected to pay attention. That's fine though. I watched it for some fun Margot Robbie. I got some fun Margot Robbie.

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Gallipoli

Premise: Australian friends join the army to fight in World War I and end up part of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

In preparation for 1917, I wanted to immerse myself a little more in WWI. The movie selection is sparse. Luckily there is this early Mel Gibson movie that I'd been meaning to get to anyway. I've read one book about WWI, so I consider myself an expert on the subject. The Gallipoli campaign is a pretty huge British failure in the war. Gallipoli is located along the Dardanelles, which essentially connect the Black season to the Mediterranean. It's an key strategic location that the British wanted. So, they sent a lot of troops there to get control from the Ottomans. A large portion of the troops were from Australia and New Zealand. After 8 months, ~250,000 troops on both sides combined had died and the British had to retreat. This is a big deal in Australian and New Zealand (New Zealish? New Zealot? New Zealandi?) history, often cited as the beginning of their national consciousness.

This movie doesn't quite capture the gravity of all that. Mostly, it's about a runner (Mark Lee) and his friend (Mel Gibson) joining the fight for a variety of reasons. They are split up after Gibson can't earn a spot in the cavalry division. Eventually, they do meet back up on Gallipoli. The tragic end is the best and most memorable part of the movie. Having seen 1917 now, I can't help but notice the similarities. 1917 is a much grander movie, but I liked Gallipoli too. I don't see war movies made in this style as much these days. It moves at a surprisingly casual pace. They don't even show up in Gallipoli until more than halfway through the movie. I tend to forget about Gibson's non-Mad Max, non-Lethal Weapon 80s movies, so this was a nice reminder of his other work.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Quick Reaction: Three Colors: Blue

I'm embarrassingly behind on writing Reactions. At the time of writing this, I'm a couple weeks removed from watching this movie. That's fine. Even day-of, I don't think I'd have more than a Quick Reaction's worth of thoughts on it. I've wanted to get to Krzysztof Kieslowski's Three Colors trilogy for a while. Accurate or not, they are what I imagine when I think of stereotypical 90's European Cinema. This movie is fine. Juliette Binoche is always great. The whole movie is basically following her around as she's sad all the time, which Binoche is perfect for. I wonder if I'll have more to say once I get through all three movies, even though I know they aren't narratively connected. This was good though. A nice little movie about grief.

Verdict: Weakly Recommend