Atomic Blonde (2017) (mini-review++)

atomic-blonde.jpg

(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

The mini-review:

acting 8

directing 7

effects 9

editing 7

writing 6

SW SCORE: 37

3.7 out of 5 šŸ™

++

I never saw this stage of Charlize Theron’s career coming. She plays Furiosa, perhaps the MOST badass female character in an action movie EVER. (OH yeah she did win an Oscar for playing a female serial killer, I know I know). Then she plays a supreme badass secret agent ass kicker in Atomic Blonde. The fresh fight choreography style isn’t as vibrant as John Wick but it is the 2nd most inventive combat gymnastics since Kick-Ass in 2010. I’ve never been a fan of the polished, stuffy James Bond franchise. I’ve always been a Bourne guy. He feelĀ  real. He feels gritty. Atomic Blonde feels more gritty. Atomic Blonde feels surreal. Atomic Blonde will blow you away.

.

.

.

Review process: (this is always evolving, I’m sad to say. I’m more of a watcher who makes mostly unhelpful observations about things I have absorbed. I am not unlike a pop culture blob.)

Two scores are assigned: (I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me)

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 šŸ™, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feelingā€¦not that SW score is scientificā€¦but this one is even less so.

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant).Ā 

One thought on “Atomic Blonde (2017) (mini-review++)

Leave a Reply