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

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

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

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.