Le ultime 24 ore

This film tells the story of an assassin, who is shot by the bodyguard of the target he has to assassinate. He is mysteriously revived and is given another mission that lasts for 24 hours.

I keep thinking there is something wrong with this film, but I can't pinpoint what it is. Maybe it's because of the absurdity of reviving someone for 24 hours. Why try and succeed in the mission, when you'll die in 24 hours regardless of success or failure? Another thing is that there seems to be a lot of movie logic present. Why use an office that is completely exposed to being shot, when you're interviewing a high value target? The story doesn't make much sense.

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!

Travis Conrad (Ethan Hawke) is a former mercenary agent that worked to the notorious Red Mountain agency. Now he misses his beloved wife Kate (Jenna Upton) and son Adam (Owen de Wet) that died, and lives with his father-in-law Frank (Rutger Hauer) in Florida. One night, Travis is drinking in a bar and his former partner and friend Jim Morrow (Paul Anderson) offers him two million dollars per day to assassinate the former agent Keith Zera (Tyrone Keogh), who is a whistleblower that will disclose secrets about the Red Mountain. Zera is now under the protection of the efficient Interpol agent Lin Bisset (Qing Xu). Travis accepts the assignment, uses Lin's son Christopher (Jeremy Yong) to learn the whereabouts of his mother and has one night stand with her to find where Keith Zera is in her cellphone, but does not kill Lin in the morning. However, Lin discovers what Travis did and kills him. Out of the blue, Travis is revived by the mysterious Dr. Helen (Nathalie Boltt) that has developed a revival procedure after several experiments to the boss Wetzler (Liam Cunningham). Travis discloses the whereabouts of Keith Zera and is betrayed by Wetzler, and learns that he has only 24 hours to live. Now he decides to help Lin Bisset and destroy Red Mountain seeking redemption.

"24 Hours to Live" is a flawed but full of action feature film, with Ethan Hawke performing an action hero surprisingly good, which is uncommon to his successful career. It is also a chance to see the unforgettable Dutch actor Rutger Hauer again. The story is flawed, like action movies shall be, but it is highly attractive and underrated. Further, it is filmed in locations in South Africa, China and United States of America, with many car crashes. The conclusion gives a chance to the character Travis Conrad appears in another film, but after so many years, it seems that the studios are not interested. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Um Dia Para Viver" ("One Day to Live")

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.