Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

The Old Guard [Netflix]

  • 10-07-2020 2:25pm
    #1
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Dropped today, and looks like another one of Netflix's mid-budget blockbusters, with Charlize Theron & Chiwetel Ejiofor adding some A-list respectability to the crazy. Actually looks like it might be all right, with a bit of humanity in its premise.



«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,539 ✭✭✭ tunguska


    Is this not Highlander though? Havent sat down to watch it yet so I may be wrong about that, but on the surface it does look a lot like The Christopher lambert, Sean connery flick.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,692 ✭✭✭✭ silverharp


    FM106 were talking about it on some review, they said watch Highlander instead , they were criticising the Netflix formula of paying big names to star in "made for TV movies"

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users Posts: 56,377 ✭✭✭✭ Agent Coulson


    silverharp wrote: »
    FM106 were talking about it on some review, they said watch Highlander instead , they were criticising the Netflix formula of paying big names to star in "made for TV movies"

    Netflix didn't make they just bought the rights to distribute it. The least they could do if they are reviewing it is get that part right.


    It's an enjoyable action film along the lines of Highlander that feels more like a pilot for a series along with being some sort of pet project for Theron to keep up her action star persona.


  • Registered Users Posts: 27,950 ✭✭✭✭ gmisk


    Just finished watching.
    It's not groundbreaking by any means but it's fun if a bit overly long. It felt kind of cheap bizarrely given the budget.
    Not a patch on atomic blonde or the like.

    I should note....some of the acting is awful...the American soldier and the head of the Merick organisation are both absolutely bloody useless


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 10,604 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Fysh


    I'm about 2/3 of the way through and it's 6/10 fare at best, but nothing more (perhaps best evidenced by the fact that I'm looking at boards now, because its not even holding my attention). What action there is has been well put together, but it's over 2 hours long and far too much of that is blather about the frankly not that interesting plot, and some character development that's earnest but still kind of meh. It doesn't have the flair of choreography or stylistic presentation to be more than passable, and it's po-faced to boot. Even Extraction at least spent most of its time on action scenes.

    Edit:
    Just finished it there. The main action sequence in the third act was pretty good but holy moly most of it felt like a slog. A good cast wasted on a pish script and all the style and sense of identity of an Argos catalogue. The soundtrack was a miserable load of arse, too.


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 31,030 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭ Mickeroo


    Felt a lot cheaper than I expected and not particularly cinematic. Soundtrack is truly terrible. A bit too long, slows to a snails pace in the middle. Still found it passable, the cast just about save it I think.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,517 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor


    I lasted about 50 minutes. Utter sh*t.

    Netflix didn't just acquire this, they helped finance it. And you can tell. Like many of their films, they splashed out on a couple of a-list actors but skimped on everything else. Middling talent behind the camera, reject tv pilot script, etc.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,054 ✭✭✭✭ McDermotX


    Absolute arse.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,528 ✭✭✭✭ dreamers75


    Another Netflix almost could be good movie.

    Ticks all the boxes for recent events but doesnt actually have a point or a plot that interests me.

    1/5


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,976 ✭✭✭ DavyD_83


    Reminds me of the resident evil movies, not in a particularly bad way.
    I'm a bit of a sticker for the super-natural element, although they really haven't done anything new with it at all.
    It's still a million times better than 6 underground, (which I actually thought was gonna be about dear/undead soldiers from the spiel, before I watched it).


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,629 ✭✭✭ Midnight_EG


    I thought it was good fun, although I watch movies to be entertained rather than to write a review about it. I look forward to a sequel :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,488 ✭✭✭✭ CastorTroy


    Yeah I liked it and would watch a sequel


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,036 ✭✭✭ EoinMcLovin


    CastorTroy wrote: »
    Yeah I liked it and would watch a sequel

    It sets up the sequel anyways which will be based on The comic The Old Guard :Force Multiplied which has the final issue out this week


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,488 ✭✭✭✭ CastorTroy


    It sets up the sequel anyways which will be based on The comic The Old Guard :Force Multiplied which has the final issue out this week

    Yeah, plan on starting the first book after I finish Rachel Rising


  • Registered Users Posts: 75,453 ✭✭✭✭ JP Liz V1


    It sets up the sequel anyways which will be based on The comic The Old Guard :Force Multiplied which has the final issue out this week

    Has it made enough for a sequel, is it a hit?


  • Registered Users Posts: 403 ✭✭ Full_Circle_81


    This really was such a waste of a good cast. Everyone was kinda sleepwalking though it. And I think it definitively could have benefited from a lighter tone in places, it was so dour and self-serious.

    As others have mentioned, the soundtrack (full of needledrops) was awful and cheapened the feel of the movie.

    If it was just the pilot of a show (which, by the end, it felt like an attempt at a franchise starter), I might have let it off. But as it's most likely a one and done, it was pointless.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,863 ✭✭✭ mikhail


    I would agree with that for the most part. The only times I noticed the score were for negative reasons. The action is fine, the plot is ho-hum. If it were a cast of no-names I'd be more generous, but it's definitely wasted talent. Just another DTV action movie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,488 ✭✭✭✭ CastorTroy


    Was thinking a sequel may happen since it didn't look like an expensive film.
    Expected Dudley Dursley to come back to life.
    The guy being dropped on his head, clearly breaking his neck made me react anyway


  • Registered Users Posts: 403 ✭✭ Full_Circle_81


    mikhail wrote: »
    I would agree with that for the most part. The only times I noticed the score were for negative reasons. The action is fine, the plot is ho-hum. If it were a cast of no-names I'd be more generous, but it's definitely wasted talent. Just another DTV action movie.

    I think this would have been a much more fun movie as a cheap and trashy Luc Besson type euro action flick with more mid-level stars.
    But then it was written by the guy who wrote the comic, so I have to assume this was the exact tone he was going for.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭ Homelander


    This actually wasn't too bad, I expected a lot worse....it's incredibly generic and bland, and the actors are wasted, but...it's OK.

    I understand why they shelled out for the actors - the names alone would prompt you to give it a shot, if it had been a cast of no-names I'm not sure I would've even bothered to be honest.

    They could have done with fleshing out the backstory of the central characters - a few more million dollars to create some epic historical scenes would've been much better, made the movie stronger, and the motive/depth of the characters much better.

    Instead they blew the money on actors and action scenes, with one or two fairly pathetic scenes from the past tacked on that look like they're from an episode of Xena: Warrior Princess.

    But yeah, not the worst way to pass an afternoon for sure.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    I can see the comparisons to a TV pilot cos this was the most artless, flaccid feature length production watched in a while; the two headline actors in Ejiofer and Theron obviously ate into the budget because while the script and its character development was solid, it looked bereft of inspiration, craft or even capability; a night scene completely overlit being the standout in sloppiness. Alan Smithee level really. Netflix's penchant for B tier schlock isn't without entertaining end results, but this wasn't one of them. Felt like nobody was even trying.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,946 ✭✭✭✭ alchemist33


    Frankly, I was bored. It felt cheap and the acting was poor, the action formulaic. I've no idea how it got 80% on Rotten Tomatoes


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,354 ✭✭✭ brianregan09


    Nothing special but I liked the premise and the action was decent , I'm in for a sequel , agree could do with a much bigger budget though to redo the scenes from the past better


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    The sequel for this is getting a new director: Victoria Mahoney, whose directing credits are mainly TV jobs, while she helmed the 2nd Unit for Rise of Skywalker. Time was, a TV director might cause one to go "eww", but these days TV shows look better than many movies do 😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,697 ✭✭✭ Slydice


    Gave this a watch and thought it was done well enough. Liked that it setup for a second. Not sure about the news on the director replacement.


    She's got some high scores in TV but seems to hit the floor with films: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/victoria_mahoney



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,777 ✭✭✭✭ ~Rebel~


    I wouldn't be too harsh on her on the film side, she's only made one small low budget one, and it was over a decade ago. I'm sure all the TV experience since will stand to her.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,697 ✭✭✭ Slydice


    Ah good spot! That's fair I think. There's a big jump since her last film work.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Hiring jobbing TV directors is a good way to offset the stars used to power these Netflix films; the money clearly went to Theron (and Ejiofor, to a lesser extent methinks), so why spend more on anything other than a simple "point and shoot" director?



  • Registered Users Posts: 56,377 ✭✭✭✭ Agent Coulson


    Looking at her only film Yelling at the Sky I think I will try and track it down

    She has a soild list to shows that she has directed on.

    I would also say Theron as a producer would have had a major say in her getting the job.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,803 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Henry Golding, and, more intriguingly, Uma Thurman(!) have joined the cast.

    Wonder was it the script or the Netflix cash that tempted Thurman back to movies... great to hear she's coming back though.



Advertisement