@JustinJackFlash said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

There's an awful lot of what might be called 'hand to hand' combat of the highly choreographed sort. None of it looks even remotely real. And contrary to that other posters have said, that has little to do with Chastain's build. The fight scene between Malkovich and Farrell is every bit as bad.

I don't know what sort of person enjoys krav maga performed as a dance routine, but it isn't me.

Like a dance routine? That sounds like something that would be in some kind of mental spoof. Don't think I'll be watching this any time soon.

Nearly all movie fight scenes are like this, whether it's 10 guys standing in a circle taking turns to attack Bruce Lee or King Kong brawling with Godzilla. The question is how much does it look like it's choreographed. Since almost none of us will have engaged in hand to hand death struggles of this sort we have to use what we do know about dancing and fighting to decide whether it looks like dancing or fighting. My experience of this is that if someone takes an elbow to the face or similar they are, as sportscasters like to say, 'going to take no further action' in proceedings. Ava takes it all too far for too long. Putting Carano into it wouldn't have fixed the problem.

The writer, Matthew Newton, has a history of violence against women. So there are probably going to be some men who enjoy seeing a small woman punched and kicked and fighting for her life, even if she does win in the end.

@cswood said:

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Starting with your last point first, when I say 'decent' I mean 'tolerable'. It has a mid 5s rating here and at imdb, and if I could split stars that is what I would have given it on this site. All of its technical values are solid: acting, cinematography etc. Cutting to the chase, nearly every action film ever made is ridiculous in its premise and depiction of combat. It's what the genre does. To criticise the movie on that basis is I think unfair. My main complaint is that neither the story nor the action scenes deliver anything new.

If that's how you feel good on you but I found it to be below average and it's another lazy Direct to Streaming action movie with bad action. People make fun of Scott Atkins' acting but at least the man knows how to fight.

Even though it wasn't a great movie try Unlocked with Noomi Rapace, she's a tiny woman too but she sells her combat ability far better than Chastain does.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

You are entitled to your opinion that Carano would have made for a better movie. Frankly I find the idea ridiculous. I don't know whether you are old enough to remember the days when video rental stores had an entire wall devoted to straight to video action movies with titles like 'Sudden Impact' and 'Fatal Destruction' and 'Seven Days Until Armageddon'. (I'm making these titles up, but they might actually exist.) Well, that's what you would have ended up with if someone like Carano was the lead. And not to be rude about it, I'm not a high roller, but even I would pass, and it would be an easy pass, on inviting Carano into the back seat with me. Might suit someone who was sitting on the fence with regard to their sexual orientation tho.

That's not fair though, the women of the 80s were young and almost all in fantastic shape compared to today where they mostly promote frumpy women pushing 30. Carano in her 20s was not a bad looking woman, and even now if she slimmed down she'd look pretty good for her age. Cynthia Rothrock wasn't a knockout in the looks department but she could sell the action and that's why people loved her.

I'm guessing that a lot of people, just like me, looked at the cast list and its description as an 'action thriller', and assumed that it was going to be more like Syriana than those cheesy 80s video rentals. I'm not going to fault you for enjoying that sort of thing, or even for liking Carano. But I think it is a sad state of affairs when we are seriously discussing the possibility that Chastain and Carano could be thought interchangeable.

This is an A list cast in a B movie. I understand where you're coming from in suggesting that to make it work you need a B list cast and then it would start to look like the movie it really is. Fair enough. My perspective is that I really wanted to see a GOOD movie, and for that to happen, the script and direction needed to be better. It really depends on which direction one wants to move the bar.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

Nearly all movie fight scenes are like this, whether it's 10 guys standing in a circle taking turns to attack Bruce Lee or King Kong brawling with Godzilla. The question is how much does it look like it's choreographed. Since almost none of us will have engaged in hand to hand death struggles of this sort we have to use what we do know about dancing and fighting to decide whether it looks like dancing or fighting. My experience of this is that if someone takes an elbow to the face or similar they are, as sportscasters like to say, 'going to take no further action' in proceedings. Ava takes it all too far for too long. Putting Carano into it wouldn't have fixed the problem.

Different action films do it different ways. I wouldn't want to see action done in the same style in every film. It's different ways to keep you entertained. No one believes fights actually happen this way with bad guys queuing up to have their turn. It's a trope. It's a movie and few are pretending otherwise. Kill Bill used this to riotously entertaining effect. The reason you want to see the likes of Jackie Chan perform this stuff is to see the skill and the craft. It's spectacle. Why is it ok to be entertained by a choreographed dance routine but not a choreographed action scene. They're both essentially meaningless (usually).

The writer, Matthew Newton, has a history of violence against women.

I wouldn't know, I've never heard of the guy. Probably because he's a talentless hack.

So there are probably going to be some men who enjoy seeing a small woman punched and kicked and fighting for her life, even if she does win in the end.

Few men enjoy seeing a woman punched and kicked and fighting for her life. At least not in manner you are implying. If they enjoy seeing her fighting for her life it is because of the tension and danger the film is creating. This would be the same no matter the protagonist's gender. Contrary to what you may hear from the media every 3 seconds, not all men are evil assbags.

You also can't have inclusivity, have a woman cast in action roles and not have the character take blows. It just wouldn't make sense, even in the context of movie world. You can't have it both ways.

One thing I really am baffled by is if the film really does have these extended action scenes as everyone is discussing, why not put bits in the trailer. If you're catering to the action audience you've got no chance of drawing them in unless you show them your film actually contains action. I certainly dismissed the film because of this (though in fairness that was not the only reason). You spend all that money and time crafting these scenes you've got to show off the goods. I don't think this is the only film to have ever done this but it is a very bizarre marketing decision.

@JustinJackFlash

I think the problem with the movie is that it falls between two stools. It's an action thriller that doesn't work as an action movie and it isn't much of a thriller either. What I'm saying essentially is that I don't agree with earlier posters who suggest it could have been fixed by having Carano as the protagonist. That would have dumbed down the movie even further. Sure that will work for a particular demographic, but probably not the demographic attracted by Chastain, Malkovich and Farrell being on the bill. Which might explain why that aspect of the movie was absent from the trailers you saw.

My conclusion that it served as a decent, ie passable, action movie is by way of consolation, because imo just about every action film is inherently stupid and Ava is no different. Putting Carano in the lead wouldn't make it less stupid because it would be somehow more 'believable'. I really can't wrap my head around that notion.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash

I think the problem with the movie is that it falls between two stools. It's an action thriller that doesn't work as an action movie and it isn't much of a thriller either. What I'm saying essentially is that I don't agree with earlier posters who suggest it could have been fixed by having Carano as the protagonist. That would have dumbed down the movie even further. Sure that will work for a particular demographic, but probably not the demographic attracted by Chastain, Malkovich and Farrell being on the bill. Which might explain why that aspect of the movie was absent from the trailers you saw.

My conclusion that it served as a decent, ie passable, action movie is by way of consolation, because imo just about every action film is inherently stupid and Ava is no different. Putting Carano in the lead wouldn't make it less stupid because it would be somehow more 'believable'. I really can't wrap my head around that notion.

Amen to that. Who remembers that kind of similar stinker Carano did about 10 years ago called 'Haywire'? I wish I didn't, but I do! It's pretty much on the same level of terrible as 'Ava' is. Even if the actress has some real fighting skills it isn't going to help if the script/story is absolute garbage and/or the actress can't act.

@Jacinto Cupboard said:

@JustinJackFlash

I think the problem with the movie is that it falls between two stools. It's an action thriller that doesn't work as an action movie and it isn't much of a thriller either. What I'm saying essentially is that I don't agree with earlier posters who suggest it could have been fixed by having Carano as the protagonist. That would have dumbed down the movie even further. Sure that will work for a particular demographic, but probably not the demographic attracted by Chastain, Malkovich and Farrell being on the bill. Which might explain why that aspect of the movie was absent from the trailers you saw.

My conclusion that it served as a decent, ie passable, action movie is by way of consolation, because imo just about every action film is inherently stupid and Ava is no different. Putting Carano in the lead wouldn't make it less stupid because it would be somehow more 'believable'. I really can't wrap my head around that notion.

Well, yeah I'd say Carano would be inappropriate here because, being an assassin or spy or whatever she is, she's gonna need to blend in. And Carano would stand out. The bad guys would assume she's some kind of soldier.

But I wouldn't say that having Carano in the lead of an action film would necessarily take it to bargain basement straight to video territory. It often would, yeah. But it would depend on the approach, the talent of the filmmakers and the writing. Steven Soderbergh directed Haywire and that didn't feel like a straight to video film. I don't remember liking it very much but it did carry a certain aesthetic. I think the approach of a film matters far more than the actor cast in the lead when determining these things. Cast Meryl Streep as the lead and if you shoot it like a TV movie that's exactly what it will feel like.

Cast Carano in a good action film with a bit of substance and it wouldn't be the first time a well made, well received film has had a wooden actor in the lead.

I just finished watching this movie and I really didn't like it I don't advise you, run away 1.8 out of 5 on allocine ... one of the worst ratings on the site

@BaronOfHair said:

Jessica Biel has grown into a competent enough actress, and she's proven herself more than capable of pulling of action girl roles in prior films. If Hollywood isn't willing to take a gamble on an unknown, the chick from 7th Heaven is always available

I don't dislike Biel but she does pick bad projects. Comparatively I don't see why Adrianne Palicki hasn't become more of an action star. She was in John Wick, G.I. Joe and Red Dawn (granted those last two weren't great) and can sell her action roles.

The problem with Hollywood is that they rarely hire or promote based on talent, it's who you know and whose ass you kiss. Also how devoted you are to the religion of Hollywood. This is why we often see so many bad actors/actresses showing up in stuff all the time.

Some actors don't age well, which is a problem if you have based a career on how you look. If an actor misses the opportunity to transition to mature roles then it's going to be hard to navigate a career path.

The opportunities for middle aged women in action roles is always going to be constrained.

@BaronOfHair said:

Biel got into producing with the USA series "The Sinner"

Yes she was very good in that, and I do give her credit for some of her more off-beat roles like The Tall Man. I just don't think action was really her thing. I think perhaps thriller/horror is a little bit more her speed.

Going back to Jessica Chastain, I can separate her annoying liberalism from her acting and enjoyed her in many thriller-ish films like Molly's Game and Zero Dark Thirty, but she is a terrible, terrible action star. Terrible. And although I think she's a better actress than Biel, I would MUCH rather watch Biel in something at this point.