The original John Wick was a film few expected to be good, but it blew audiences away—and its second chapter is even better than the first.
Keanu Reeves is back in form as the gun-toting titular character of John Wick: Chapter 2 and many critics are calling it one of the best action movies ever made, save for The Guardian, which not only hates the film, but decries it with hypersensitive pearl-clutching commentary over its violent content.
Writing for the leftist publication, Jordan Hoffman says he found himself clutching his throbbing head from the intensity of the film, with no mention of the pearls he was clutching in his other hand.
The writer says the movie’s “obsession with weaponry leaves a nasty taste in the mouth” but it’s nothing compared to what you’ll be left with if you actually read his article. His pervasive condescension mixed with a degree of martyrdom is almost unstomachable not to mention unfathomable. Reviewing movies would be a dream job for most, but for this critic, it’s akin to being a soldier in a war.
After all, what’s two hours your life worth compared to a lifetime of snarking on social media and an easy paycheck?
The writer spends most of the review complaining about the movie’s love letter to the Second Amendment and the oversaturation of gun violence in action flicks. Disgustingly, he even invokes real-world terrorist acts in San Bernardino, Newtown, Aurora, and the Pulse night club in Orlando, in which innocents were brutally slain.
Interestingly, Hoffman admits that he gave the first John Wick a four-star review. He says that as others became more desensitized, he went in the opposite direction, directly contradicting his thesis that the abundance of gun violence makes people embrace violence. He argues that it’s a new development, however, and expects others to become just as sensitive as he is now. If that’s the case then wouldn’t John Wick 2 and similar action movies be a net good, according to his argument?
When your essay contradicts itself from paragraph to paragraph, there’s one simple explanation that fits the bill: he’s just virtue signaling. Hoffman liked John Wick in 2014 because it’s before he took his first sip of the Kool-Aid at the social justice potluck. He condemns the second one because he now sees it as the right thing to do and scrambles to justify it as anything but the attempt to fit in that it is. Don’t toe the proverbial party line, I guess, but if you ask me I’d rather review a movie for real elements than parrot the beliefs of political ideologues.
Then again, it’s not surprising. As of late, The Guardian has become a laughingstock in terms of film reviews, often going against the grain to whine about whatever problematic content its easily-offended millennial church moms find to be of bad influence to the public they look down on. The publication’s negative two-star review of the Tom Hardy biopic of the Kray brothers was featured in a poster of the 2015 film, wedged between the two Tom Hardy characters, alongside the 4 and 5-star reviews from every other review.
Naturally, the writer of that review was kind of offended by that, too.