24 Hours to Live

If Keanu Reeves's ceaselessly disappointing sequels are fatally getting on your Wick, why not spend a densely dangerous day with the hyper-vengeful assassin Hawke? This adequate, generously squib-shredded blood-spiller frequently makes for an amusingly noisome action-heavy, bad-guy blasting, blissfully brain-dead, Sci-fi singed time-killer!!!! If 'Taken' with substances considerably stronger than salt, '24 hours to Live' is a half-decent, knuckle-headed, audaciously adrenalized actioner from the talented director of no less violent, Cuba Gooding Jr-starring bullet-fest 'Hero Wanted'; NOT to be confused with '24 Hours to Kill' (1965) as that, er, was made in 1965, and is called '24 Hours to Kill', not '24 Hours to Live'! Better to be safe than scurvy as me old man used ta' say!

I know Ethan Hawke used to starring in a lot of action movie but he never strike the lead action hero in my eyes until i saw 24 Hours to Live.His always sad and tired face intentional or unintentional make he fit the role perfectly that add a lot of emotional into the cliché dialogue.The movie is pure action from start to finish make it a good Saturday night flick when you lazy to go out.The ending is terrible btw

I read the reviews pre-watching. In fact, the reviews are why I pushed it off.

I actually enjoyed this flick.

Yes, it was extremely predictable. This movie has been done 1000 different times, but still good!

1. Bad CGI. The use of CG blood ruined the parts that could have been really good. I don't see any reviews here pointing this out like in many other movies (John Wick) that use this shi**y effect and rarely gets called out. Imagine if they used the tried and tested blood squib, it would totally change the quality of this film.

2. The action is good overall but its lacking oomph. The pacing feels rushed. A lot of times the sound effects are not on point. The background music would drown the gunshots and everything else. The gun shots can range as loud as the footsteps. The balance is off.

3. Plot holes, some characters would know things that they shouldn't and would be in places that are questionable.

That being said, the story was surprisingly decent. There was chemistry between the characters. I like Travis' portrayal. I was able to connect with him without the story cheating. You don't get to see exactly what happened to his past or how it happened, it is unraveled bit by bit as the story goes.

Despite all of these flaws, it still came out decent. If only the things I've mentioned were put into use this film could even score as high as 8/10.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this is a great movie. By all means no. It has a decent plot, couple of twists and well acted characters.

What i want to focus on is the primary goal of every action movie: delivering understandable action. Now since "John Wick" came out i've watched a lot of action movies and started to notice a change in the way action is filmed and edited. Of course there are a lot of quick cut/shaky madness action films from recent years, but for every "Sleepless" you get a movie like "Acts of Vengeance", for every "Kickboxer 2" you get "Boyka: Undisputed", for "The Hunter's Prayer" you get "Bushwick" and for "American Assassin" you get "24 Hours to Live". What i mean by this? These movies actually let us see what is going on in terms of action scenes.

In this particular movie when Ethan Hawke fights, we see all of it. No quick cuts. The camera moves in wide angle, giving us a clear view. Gun fights have clear sense of direction and geography. Even shootouts during car chase are done better, than in larger films. Now is it as good as "John Wick Chapter Two" or "Atomic Blonde"? No! But it's better than most.

So if you want to watch and enjoy an Action film, where you don't get lost in the action itself, i definitely recommend this movie.