name99-92-545389

Who knew that Quentin Tarantino's long rumored 11th movie would be set in Finland?

I joke of course, but this movie is clearly the illegitimate child, conceived in sin but so so beloved, of Rambo and Tarantino! Everything from the titles to the themed "chapters" to the visual appearance screams Quentin.

The only thing that's missing is that ever so witty dialog, that craziness whether it's musings on McDonalds, or "What Kent wears - the glasses, the business suit - that's the costume. That's the costume Superman wears to blend in with us. Clark Kent is how Superman views us. And what are the characteristics of Clark Kent. He's weak... he's unsure of himself... he's a coward. Clark Kent is Superman's critique on the whole human race." But one can't have everything!

So, while we all wait for a bootleg edition of The Movie Critic to appear on the internet, you can satisfy for QT jonesing by watching Sisu.

Yes, it's a John Wick movie, fifth in the series (I'm a purist, I include Bob Odenkirk's Nobody). You ought to know what's on the menu.

Even so it delivers, and delivers more than I expected. Yes, the action sequences are stunning: longer, more imaginative, and more of them!

But the big surprise is that this should have been call John Wick by Night, or John Wick: This is HDR. The movie is visually stunning, in a very particular way. It's one long love letter to what's now possible with 21st C lighting and HDR cameras and displays. Almost every scene has these ridiculously beautiful deep blacks against absurd greens or magentas or cyans. You know how a modern Wes Anderson movie is so lovely, and so unusual in its loveliness, that you can watch it with the sound turned off? The aesthetic is very different, but this movie feels like the DP has that same obsessive concern with making every scene look like nothing you have ever seen before.

Even if you're not a fan of action movies, give it a try, especially the second half. You might fall it in love with it just for the lighting.

This had the potential to be interesting but couldn't decide what it wanted to do.

Was it about the trial per se?

Was it about responses to the trial at the time?

Was it about responses in the fifty years since the trial?

Was it about Nazi'ism generally?

This is why I call it documentary slop. It was various old footage, loosely edited and interleaved, but with no strong opinion about anything (opinions cost money!)

About 2/3 (the actual trial footage) is interesting though, as always, one fears that the editing may have had an agenda, even if the agenda was "this is boring, that's not". The other 1/3 is utterly uninteresting main-in-the-street responses to the trial.

Very little here you won't already know if you have even the slightest awareness of the phrase "the banality of evil". And very little here in the trial machinations and details that you didn't already know.