Skip to main content

I’m sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you got yourself killed.


(SPOILERS) If the trailer for Bloodshot gave the impression it had some meagre potential, that’s probably because it revealed the entire plot of a movie clearly intended to unveil itself in measured and judicious fashion. It isn’t far from the halfway mark that the truth about the situation Vin Diesel’s Ray Garrison faces is revealed, which is about forty-one minutes later than in the trailer. More frustratingly, while themes of perception of reality, memory and identity are much-ploughed cinematic furrows, they’re evergreens if dealt with smartly. Bloodshot quickly squanders them. But then, this is, after all, a Vin Diesel vehicle.

A stranded one at that. Sony’s bid to spin franchises from the Valiant comics brand – although, confusingly Marvel-like, another of their titles is in development at Paramount – looked unlikely with Bloodshot’s slack box office performance. However, it came cheap, and Vin has experience of characters continuing against the odds (Riddick). The Bloodshot premise, of a dead soldier brought back to life through advanced technology and set to work as the property of those who revived him, his memory wiped, will likely be familiar to most from Robocop, where Paul Verhoeven tackled it with just enough wit and pathos amid the ultraviolence.

Debut director David SF Wilson, previously a visual effects guy (and mostly in video games at that) can put together a coherent action scene, but he resoundingly fails with character. And while one might offer some leeway, given the budget, you’d have thought someone with an effects background would be able to commandeer CGI with a touch more verisimilitude (somehow, Neill Blomkamp manages it every time, and often on slenderer budgets). The two-tone colour keying is also sadly present and correct.

However much Vin may coast most of the time, he does have chops many of his action peers simply don’t. Which means that, when his wife (Talulah Riley) is murdered early on, he’s able to give it some welly. Subsequently, however, he’s largely on a guns-and-revenge kick that speeds by in a blur of weightless (visually and dramatically) pixels. If Wilson were a better director, he’d doubtless have picked up on some of the wittier material in the screenplay from Jeff Wadlow (Kick-Ass 2) and Eric Heisserer (Arrival). Garrison’s first encounter Martin Axe (Toby Kebbell) is an absurdly cliché-ridden affair, with Axe in a meat locker, decked out in a fur coat and dancing to Talking Heads as he threatens Garrison and then kills his wife. If you’re thinking this bodes ill, that’s because it’s a false memory even CEO Emil Harling (Guy Pearce), who controls the company utilising Garrison, regards as too much: “You’ve already ripped off every movie cliché there is. I think Psycho Killer and a dancing lunatic in a slaughterhouse is plenty” he tells his programmer lackey when offered some “new” ideas.

Kebbell’s absolutely the first person you’d cast as that kind of strutting cliché, so the reveal that he’s a fraidy cat is the more effective. And stock asshole colleague/opponent Dalton (Sam Heughan) is entirely unconvinced by the Bloodshot – or should that be Diesel? – brand: “You’re an exhausting shitbird with a revenge button we keep pushing” he tells the “relentless dick”. Doubtless Dwayne Johnson would agree. Dalton is an anodyne foe, however, with attachments somewhere between Doc Ock and Robocop 2. And Vin’s involvement (he’s a credited producer) doubtless helped ensure the pedestrian ironing out of his title character’s potential foibles.

Most of the cast fall into line with such formulaic characters. Eiza Gonzalez is pretty, bland, slim and kickass as the sympathetically breathing-challenged ex-military girl who helps Garrison out (she comes complete with some anti-Syria propaganda, having been affected in a chemical attack). Pearce can do these bad guys in his sleep, spouting dialogue like “People like boxes, Ray. They need structure. They need guidance. That’s just a reality”. Which may be sadly true, but he’d have been more fun cast as Bloodshot (in Lockout mode). Lamorne Morris is horrendous as the comic-relief tech whizz. His gags aren’t funny, and he’s sporting an English accent that would make even Don Cheadle blush.

Because the picture’s CGI is frequently cartoonish, complete with nanite armies resembling swarms of bugs, the transhumanist subject matter it’s addressing is somewhat undercut. From the top, such technology as given to Garrison promises immortality (the transhumanist goal, immersed as its proponents are in an abjectly materialist appreciation of existence). The nanite infestation may be exaggeration for (superhero) effect, but altering the system of any subject is essentially of the same nanotech order as we are currently seeing. A technology encountering unaccountable acceptance and endorsement amongst the majority via a jab.

In Bloodshot, the nanites’ remit is to repair – there’s a scene where Garrison is offered alcohol, which presumably should have no effect, being deleterious to the system. Even presuming such tech could be utilised as positively as it undoubtedly can be negatively, that would rely on those implementing it being other than eugenicists warning of rampant overpopulation. Garrison ultimately regains his own autonomy, but along the way we discover his body “was donated by the US military”. He has “a billion wireless microprocessors in his brain”, meaning he can be constantly monitored, tracked, interfered or interfaced with, communicated with, controlled, and if desired shut down: his entire system is completely programmable. Who doesn’t duh-ream of such a thing?

Bloodshot is at its best when it is messing with its protagonist’s reality – so during the first half. The stir and repeat of Garrison being reprogrammed, awakening, going on a mission, has its own Groundhog Day odour, except that in this case, all participants who are not Garrison must recite the same script each time. He is, essentially, in his own Dark City. As executed, though, the proceedings feel largely passé. Diesel has one sure-thing franchise to cling to (I’m unconvinced by Xander Cage’s prospects), and a movie as generic as Bloodshot isn’t going to change that at all.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the