Wow. That was the first thought that came to mind as I left the decidedly less than full theater. It is a "wow" that comes with multiple interpretations. One interpretation is that this is a great movie that you would be stupid to miss on the big screen. Another possibility is that "wow" refers to the utter badness of the product. There are likely critics and fans who will fall on both sides of the line, although I suspect the majority will fall on the side of the second wow. My "wow" actually falls under a third interpretation. It is the sort that falls somewhere in between. Punisher: War Zone is not a good movie. It is definitely slickly made and has good production value, but it is not a good movie. It is the kind of movie that can provide immense entertainment if you want to have fun with it.
Punisher: War Zone is the sort of film that can kill a critic's credibility if they come out and say they like it. This works out well for me since I lost that a long time ago! I kid. Frankly, what do you think is better for a critic to do? Should they go along with the rest of the critical community and either praise or denigrate said film; or would you rather the critic demonstrate a mind of their own, regardless of what the masses think? Personally, I go with the latter; it makes it easier to reconcile the sides of me that like the important big films just as much as cheap genre outings. Of course, agreeing with the majority is not a bad thing, so long as you are agreeing for the right reasons.
As for this film? It is an absolute blast, fulled with bullets, blood, and over the top violence. I still have questions over whether or not this is actually a sequel to the 2004 Thomas Jane-starring Punisher film or if it is a reboot for the character. Not enough evidence is presented one way or the other, although I am more likely to believe it is a reboot. There is no mention of the events of the last film, but there is similarly no dwelling on the character's origin. I guess we got enough of an origin story in the Jane film and the even older Dolph Lundgren version.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments