Wow, just wow...


I don't often write reviews, but I am gonna make an exception for "Blood Father":

Wow, this movie was AWFUL! Terrible acting, mediocre directing and an unrealistic plot. I really enjoyed the Mesrine movies, but this flick is just not up to the standard you would expect.

I don't know what the worst part is, the total lack of realism, the shallow and dumb dialogue, the cliches and predictability, or the feeling that the director is rushing through the movie, as if he wants to rip off a band aid. Actually the best part about this movie is its short run-time of 1.28h.

I feel insulted as a viewer, that they feed me this crap and waste 1,5 hours of my life.

Do yourself a favour and don't watch this movie. You will regret it.

4/10

reply

I guess you were expecting a "life changing" experience after watching this movie, eh? Try jumping off a bridge. This movie was better than 90% of the crap that's in theaters right now. It had everything a good action movie should have: a simple story (a bit cliché but who cares) and a male lead who kicks ass and takes no prisoners. Admit it... action movies aren't your thing. Don't try to force it honey.

reply

So you wish I committed suicide because I didn't like a film... I think we'll just leave it at that.

reply

SPOILERS

This is not really the forum for reviews, however, I'm surprised by your opinion.

'Blood Father' is exactly what is expected from Mel Gibson at this time. He is making a comeback and this 'B' film is a test to see if he still has box office draw. The character is perfect - Anti-Hero, like Paul Newman and Steve McQueen used to play. We root for him even though he's a Bad Boy because he's redeeming himself by saving his daughter.

The action isn't edited with the '2 Second Rule,' there's a bit more time between action scenes. It's paced so there's a few moments to develop characterization between the shooting, car chase, motorcycle chase, and trailer roll. Mel's expressions create his character more than the script.

I agree the dialogue does seem to be searching for a good line at the "I'll be Back" level. But it doesn't need one. Mel storming across the room roaring at the villain is just as good, if not better.

This is a real action film like Mel's first film 'Mad Max.' Don't get upset - I'm not comparing the films, I'm comparing the budgets. Like 'Mad Max,' this is not a film shot almost completely with Green Screen. If there is CGI, there's not much. But we can tell the stuntmen are driving the cars, the gunfire is loud, and the trailer roll is pretty cool.

'Blood Father' isn't realistic, and for the most part it's predictable and cliched...I didn't expect 'Hamlet.' I expected Mel. And even with the 'Noah' beard, he's still got it. Mel is gray and bearded in this film to distance himself a bit from his past image. But later, he shaves and he's the Mel we recognize.

It is an hour and a half of entertaining, above average, low budget, cheer on the Anti-Hero type of film. 'Blood Father' was everything I expected and contains one of my favorite Mel scenes now - 'The Roar'

reply

I agree with you.
Annoying movie from my POV.

reply

I totally agree with your review. Formulaic, derivative, and dumb. Complete caca...

reply

You smell.

reply

i watched this imagining it was an older Riggs. was kind of fun.

http://trakt.tv/users/pedro
http://mooviestats.com/johhnyy/tv/2016/

reply

I watched it and I don't regret it, so that blows that suggestion out of the water.

Is your life really that tightly booked that if and when you spend 90 min on a movie it has to be life transforming? I'm not saying your opinion isn't valid, but it's such an absurd cliche to claim that after watching a film you "waste 1.5 hours" of your life. No, you watched a movie, that's all you did.

I really liked Blood Father. It was pretty standard in some ways, but there were a few nice surprises, like the motorcycle shootout and the fate of his sponsor/friend. It didn't turn the genre on its head or usher in a new era of antihero, it won't make my "best of" list and it won't win best original screenplay, but it was a solid film. I thought Mel Gibson killed it (he rarely ever turns in a poor performance though) and I thought Diego Luna was very good. I would have loved to see some characters play bigger roles, like the cleaner, but it had a solid 3-act structure, which is becoming pretty rare these days (did you see Suicide Squad?)

btw- honestly, who really wants "realism" when they watch a movie? You cite that as an issue, but if it was realistic there would be no movie. The reason there's a movie is because we are watching a work of fiction and part of that is watching a protagonist survive situations you and I would not- the willing suspension of disbelief.

What else does one say? It's fine to dislike a film. Not every film can be No Country for Old Men. And it's fine that you feel important enough to think your opinion matters to others, but no matter how much you might hate a film, the moment you voice your opinion, you know 500 people will appear out of the woodwork to tell you that you are wrong.

I'm just one of those people.

reply

well i thought it's actually good. story and acting.

reply

I really liked it! And it reminded me of much I enjoy Mel Gibson as an actor.

reply