Movie Review: Three Days to Kill
Mar. 11th, 2014 08:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
bedsitter23Directed by McG, co-written by Luc Besson and starring Kevin Costner
Ah, McG. You know I haven't thought of him in years. Children of the 90s thought he was the next big auteur, and Charlie's Angels seemed to be a step in the right direction. But we also thought Dubya was going to lead as a moderate. Heck, we thought Putin was going to lead as a moderate. I can't say I really have gave him much thought since those days of Rosie O'Donnell, Kid Rock, and Elian Gonzales
Costner has had it a bit rough. I liked him during his do-no-wrong years and still do, but time has not been kind. Dances with Wolves used to be considered an epic, but now is mostly known as the film that kept GoodFellas from winning the Oscar. Costner is the man of WaterWorld, The Postman, and an American Robin Hood.
I like Costner though, and this film really is a good showcase for him. Last year's Hatfields and McCoys did some work in resurrecting his name, and this is a strong performance. This is the weary spy role, but Costner especially fits. There are a few moments where he "Costner"s out and you immediately think that this would be a lot better with Liam Neeson in it. Still, those moments are few.
Which brings me to Besson, and the heart of the review. This film has gotten some bad reviews, but it really is not a bad movie.
The fact that it is a 'spy close to retirement'/ 'spy with family/teenage daughter relationship' issues means you have seen it before. The main problem is this film doesn't do anything transcendent by either Hollywood or Besson standards. With Taken, you wanted to see it again and everyone waited for a sequel (Even the Transporter was a transcendent film in those ways). Three Days to Kill isn't Taken.
That said, I rather enjoyed the film. Besson is still as good of a writer as anyone, and he writes some scenes that will stick in your memory for awhile.
Although, he's done it all before, we are invested in Costner, and the bad guys, and all the characters around them. The action, drama and comedy are handled with an expert hand. Besson is clearly in his wheelhouse here as opposed to last year's disappointing The Family.
The film at 2 hours is probably 20 minutes too long. It gives a satisfying payoff, but the pacing makes you wonder if it worth it. overall, though I liked it as far as genre films go and think it's worth seeing once.
Ah, McG. You know I haven't thought of him in years. Children of the 90s thought he was the next big auteur, and Charlie's Angels seemed to be a step in the right direction. But we also thought Dubya was going to lead as a moderate. Heck, we thought Putin was going to lead as a moderate. I can't say I really have gave him much thought since those days of Rosie O'Donnell, Kid Rock, and Elian Gonzales
Costner has had it a bit rough. I liked him during his do-no-wrong years and still do, but time has not been kind. Dances with Wolves used to be considered an epic, but now is mostly known as the film that kept GoodFellas from winning the Oscar. Costner is the man of WaterWorld, The Postman, and an American Robin Hood.
I like Costner though, and this film really is a good showcase for him. Last year's Hatfields and McCoys did some work in resurrecting his name, and this is a strong performance. This is the weary spy role, but Costner especially fits. There are a few moments where he "Costner"s out and you immediately think that this would be a lot better with Liam Neeson in it. Still, those moments are few.
Which brings me to Besson, and the heart of the review. This film has gotten some bad reviews, but it really is not a bad movie.
The fact that it is a 'spy close to retirement'/ 'spy with family/teenage daughter relationship' issues means you have seen it before. The main problem is this film doesn't do anything transcendent by either Hollywood or Besson standards. With Taken, you wanted to see it again and everyone waited for a sequel (Even the Transporter was a transcendent film in those ways). Three Days to Kill isn't Taken.
That said, I rather enjoyed the film. Besson is still as good of a writer as anyone, and he writes some scenes that will stick in your memory for awhile.
Although, he's done it all before, we are invested in Costner, and the bad guys, and all the characters around them. The action, drama and comedy are handled with an expert hand. Besson is clearly in his wheelhouse here as opposed to last year's disappointing The Family.
The film at 2 hours is probably 20 minutes too long. It gives a satisfying payoff, but the pacing makes you wonder if it worth it. overall, though I liked it as far as genre films go and think it's worth seeing once.
