Space Mutiny, David Winters and Neal Sundstrom, 1988, South Africa (USA).

Space Mutiny, David Winters and Neal Sundstrom, 1988, South Africa (USA).

Hmm. Well, I figured I had just sat through one of the all time greats, the best way to counteract such a feat would be to sit through one of the all time (so called) worse movies ever made. But there is a fly in the ointment here, this is supremely entertaining precisely because of its poor production values. This movie is so bad on so many levels that it boggles the mind. This movie recalls all those oxymorons that don’t fit anywhere else, such as horribly awesome or terribly great. Maybe my favorite thing about this movie is it doesn’t try to be bad, it just is.

The cinematography is OK, but the sets and the effects are head scratching. Many people remarked on the “bad” special effects, but I counter with the idea that there may not have been enough special effects. When people are “blown up,” and fall by doing choreographed (step 1, step 2, step 3) jumps they should have maybe skewed the camera or I don’t know… used some special effect or something? How then does such bad special effect work make me want to show all my friends the “space cart” chase scenes? The movie uses two directors, and they are likely fast friends, because I get the feeling they went out drinking a lot and never quite got sober enough to figure out what they were doing during the production. The editing… I mean there was an editor I think? Surely someone was “on call” if anything seemed to need editing… Someone had to edit here and there in order to mess up the editing, so there is that… I thought that maybe the acting was OK and the screenplay was bad, or maybe the acting wasn’t so good and the screenplay wasn’t so good either, but most likely the acting was really bad and the screenplay was really bad as well. The basic “main” storyline was simple and actually didn’t leave too much in question. Everything around the main story was convoluted, made little or no sense, and I just don’t know about that? This movie has earned one of my awards. This film holds a special place of honor for me in the category “Worst movies that I will most certainly watch again.” I have a running list of films that may be great, or at least superb, that I cannot bear to watch again as they are just too painful for one reason or another, but I never thought I might wish or feel compelled to make a list of bad movies that I can’t wait to see again, or go so far as to show my friends or recommend?. So, with an honorary award, I rate this film 1 star for being really really bad. I should give it even less, but it is just too damn fun.

The future… Yep. For some reason the future holds a high place for leotards and form fitting clothing. Many movies seem to indicate that in the future this sort of eye candy is just a matter of course. Now I, for one, would be pretty much OK with that, so yay future! Aside from that there is the “pilot” who is a beefcake type dude, and the random party scenes taken out of 80’s workout videos! If you are really really kinky, there are frozen dudes in speedos in one scene, which explains the recruiting process of the bad guys… And there is the witch ladies that do like rituals and stuff all the while in bodysuits with generous chunks missing… and seem to do some sort of psyonic seduction stuff. There is some vanilla “love making” scenes and a check out my ass scene that causes one to ponder tastefulness. Ah, such is the nature of the license a bad film has… I will go with 1 ½ on the kink scale.

Advertisements

8 ½, Federico Fellini, 1963, Italy.

8 ½, Federico Fellini, 1963, Italy.
When I was younger I was a cyclist. I rode every day for over 20 years, with the occasional break for snow and sickness. As a consequence, I was quite fit, in fact very fit indeed. I rode with quite good riders with a couple of local “pros” and one who actually was on a Belgian professional team. I was not the fastest or best, but not for lack of skill or fitness. It comes down to genetic makeup, and how our bodies respond to high levels of lactic acid. So maybe my legs are a bit short and I didn’t have quite the right ratio of fast and slow twitch muscle fibers to be a professional. In pseudo medical terms, when my heart-rate was maxed out, the local pros had a bit more to give, the Belgian racer had one more internal “gear,” so he blew everybody away, and the professionals that ride (for instance) in the Tour de France have yet another gear over him! So when we watch bicycle races on TV or even real life, and imagine we could do that maybe (given time to be fit like that etc. ) we may actually be incorrect. We would have to have the requisite body genetics first. It is no wonder why cycling is rife with drug abuse as this genetic issue cannot be “made up!” It is simply a gift, and when used well, it creates a bit of magic.
Why start a film review with this diatribe on cyclist fitness levels? Well, it is appropriate here. It is likely true that people who would bother to read film reviews like this one are also likely to at the very least fantasize about making their own films. Some do make films, and some will. But just like the cyclist watching the Tour de France, it is an illusion to imagine we can make a film like this. The word “Masterwork” is overused in our culture today, more of a marketers pipe dream then a reality most of the time. Yet here, it is the only proper word to use to describe it. This is a masterwork from Federico Fellini. It is so exquisite in its detail and complexity as to be nearly impossible to grasp. I want everyone who reads this to imagine being given the task to write the screenplay for this movie. Where do you even begin? How do you even write a treatment on this film? And we can cheat, it is already done! I don’t imagine too many filmmakers, even given the genetic structure to do it, would have the nerve to pitch this idea today… That is sad actually.
So lets talk about this movie.
This movie is said to be “The greatest film about films ever made.” (From the Criterion cover) and maybe it is, but it isn’t really about film after all, but about life and all its complexities.
I was more than a bit intimidated by its 138 minute run time and left it on the shelf for a long time because of it. When I watched it I found it to be not nearly that long mentally, although it does run that time on the clock. Perhaps it is because the first thing I noted was how it is made up of a thousand small stories with “payoffs” coming within a few scenes, as opposed to (just say) a mystery movie that gives the clues throughout the story until the final reveal which is its only payoff. There is a flow to it that you find yourself following along, and caring to continue. I found a rather profound irony in that I was beginning to wonder how it was going to end, as the counter was getting up there and I couldn’t imagine a resolution. It suddenly occurred to me that that was precisely the main characters problem as well, among a myriad of others! It wasn’t some sort of gimmick, it just naturally puts you there, worried for the film within the film and the film itself. The film is a blend of fantasy and reality, with the reality often played as farcical melodrama.Yet, even in the fantasy sequences, it is so poignant that at times it is as true to life as any moment we will ever see. There is a religious element that is a good example of this. The film calls it an “Italian catholic consciousness.” and plays it out (in part) as a melodramatic form of flashback dream and yet it touches on truths of catholic consciousness that certainly cross the Italian border!
The cinematography is clear and crisp, camera movements and any effects used efficiently and when necessary, you don’t really think much on it actually. So while this is good in a “not at all irritating” way, on the whole it doesn’t blow you away with visual beauty. (With strong exceptions!). The direction is master class and the editing keeps the story pacing well, tonal values in check, and it flows more or less in a linear way. The acting is compelling, yet somewhat hard to define as the surreal and the real seem to blend and flow at times so you may be thinking something is melodramatic yet it is sensible for the scene. The most basic storyline is easy to follow, but it is a bit player to the multiple small story lines throughout, it is a true privlidge and delight to see this film… Is there anything to complain about? Well, there is something that I would pick on, if only because I have been picked on for it so many times: When I write essays or term papers and the like, they usually have great ambition. So while many are struggling to find that 1500th word, I am struggling to figure out how to condense it a bit, maybe use single space instead of double to make it seem a bit shorter… So I have been told that I should keep it a bit less ambitious, no need to write a book. This movie touches on so many things on so many levels that even though it is done remarkably well, it is really really ambitious! It probably would still have a similarly deep impact had it been done more simply… although we will never know and frankly, we are probably better off for it. I am going to rate this movie 4 stars because it deserves and earns it. I don’t know if on a highly personal level it reaches quite there, maybe three and a half, but I am trying to keep my ratings objective.
This movie has plenty of women in various states of dress and undress, and it does explore many aspects of sexual dynamics between men and women, yet it isn’t out to exploit or give any cheap thrills. I suppose there are scenes, and both male and female actresses, that are easy on the eyes, and there is not that “Hollywood” mysterious absence of sexuality which is a thorn in my side… There are some lovely filmed scenes that are worth seeing. I will go with a 1 ½ on the kink scale

The Most Hated Family in America, 2006/America’s Most Hated Family in crisis, 2011, Louis Theroux, UK.

The Most Hated Family in America, 2006/America’s Most Hated Family in crisis, 2011, Louis Theroux, UK.
I watched these two one hour documentaries back to back and felt a shared review made more sense.
Before I get into these films in detail, it is critical to note something quite essential to documentaries, and Louis Theroux.
I have spoken about documentaries as having two sides (In my SENNA review), one as a non fiction complete work, and the other as a scripted/acted rendition of a non fiction subject. I used the term mockumentary, yet this is technically incorrect, as a mockumentary is a fictional work that parodies an actual documentary. What I should have said was docudrama, which fits the definition I just used precisely. There is also docufiction, which uses scripted fictional parts to spice up an actual documented event or situation. None the less, if we stick with the non fiction through and through, non scripted work, aka, “an actual documentary!” there are a few common ways filmmakers approach them: On one hand we have documentaries where there are no signs of the filmmakers at all, just whatever the story is about going on as if from our point of view. On the other hand is Louis Theroux’s sometimes on camera and voice over narrative form. In between we have documentaries where the subjects are being interviewed but we only see them respond to “invisible” and non recorded questions (presumably from the filmmakers.) Then we have the “visible” verbalized questions we hear being asked of the subjects, finally getting to the presence of the filmmakers within the film itself. Louis Theroux takes the latter to an extreme, by being “in” the documentary nearly full time, and having a voiceover running narrative throughout. I, for one, found this style to be somewhat off putting at first. A few of his documentaries later, I have come to appreciate this style. BUT… It takes some getting used to! Many will find it annoying or subjective to a fault. Yet I have yet to watch any of his work regardless of whether I share his agenda, where he hasn’t treated his subjects with utmost respect and care, even when his agenda is being challenged.
So, straightaway, I would suggest that if you have not seen any of Louis Theroux’s work before this, that you do so, if just to understand his style before you tackle this particular subject matter.
See, there is a level of vulgarity here that is seldom (if ever!) surpassed. The “family” in the title are the members of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is a small extremist cult, led by a certifiable sociopath, who exhibit increasingly inappropriate behavior throughout the two documentaries. I must warn those who have normal developed sensibilities, these people are real, their gauche behaviorisms intended, and they brainwash their young members through fear and intimidation on camera! You have been warned!
The documentary starts with Louis going to visit the church and meet the people behind it. His agenda seems to be simply to understand the why behind the behavior and to coax or at least talk some sense into the younger members. It seems that the “grown ups” don’t wish the simple pleasures of life for their children and it is very clear without the need of fancy editing, that they are warping their young minds with extreme rage and hatred towards humanity (all humanity!). Yet we also get the sense that everyone there, including the elders, are under the influence of the sociopath leader, who mainly hides away in his private chambers while his minions do his bidding. (With some of the young ones… I am talking 7 years old, taking the brunt of the punishment.) When Louis tries to interview the leader, “Grandpa,” as he is called, we are struck by his level of grandiose delusion (Delusion of grandeur). Yet we are also struck (and Louis points out to some of the church members) by his seeming extreme rage and anger, yet it is truly a task to even remotely figure out where it comes from. Leaving him behind, the rest of the “family” has varying degrees of sincerity to the church (as we, as thinking, feeling humans, see on camera!) yet they speak, sometimes robotically, as if they are sincere in the goals of the church… I have to hand it to Louis on this one, I would have run, not walked, away from the church grounds and likely the town, followed by the state, to get as much distance as possible from it all. Even Louis uses a bit of sarcastic humor to get by, and help us as viewers get by as well. Luckily, the church members are so full of themselves that they don’t catch on, and we share a joke on them. By the end of the first documentary, we are left with both the idea that some of the members are hopelessly brainwashed into the cult, while others are struggling with it, so thus we are left with a sort of hope/fear for some of them. I honestly thought I would wish them all dead, but it doesn’t really work that way somehow?
In the second documentary, Louis is greeted with a pithy sort of strange comment about how he is some sort of historic titan among antichrists or similar… then that same sort of searching fake smile thing from some of the members in the first doc. The odd thing is that I get the feeling that nearly all the members were in denial, an existential crisis of sorts. I will share a theory I have that is not new from this documentary but fits: If someone lives an inauthentic life for “too long,” for example they are on their deathbed, and suddenly realize the extent of time they squandered doing something other then they wished with their life, and now cannot “undo” time or come up with new time to do those things, they will have an existential crisis. However, what we do to prevent the crisis is validate what we have done in some way through justification or shared misery. Here, we have a fine example of this in action. Imagine the emotional pain and suffering they are feeling from those they alienate, and years of living for the hate and pain of others. (Actually forget imagining, watch it happen when the woman can’t even put food back in the refrigerator after Louis asks her if it was hard to banish her daughter from her life, she says one thing, but is clearly shattered to the core!). These people are so full of shit because they have to be, its a survival mechanism for their minds. In the first documentary it seemed that they were really devout and serious about their message, in the second it seems they are more robotic, as if they have truly lost their will and just carry on. (NOTE: A few of them, like the fearless leader, are still vile and awful subhuman cultists!) By the end I felt like pulling some of them out of there, getting them far away from it all so that they could finally be real, away from the fear and hate that created that bubble they live in. Again, opposite of what I would have thought before I saw the documentaries! So while Louis Theroux may be some sort of demon beast to them, I found his humanistic approach to dealing with these people to be full of compassion and hope, exactly the opposite the message their church preaches!
OK. Cinematically speaking, I think Louis Theroux has a team he uses, as with most of his documentaries, they are well filmed and polished. The editing seems to try for objectively in what it shows, although I know Louis himself has his own beliefs that he is not afraid to put on screen for us. The people are real, and really messed up to boot! In so much as the story is real life, it is dramatic as we see the young people torn in their hearts between what they are forced to submit to versus what they naturally wish to do as humans. We also see the pain of trying to stick with an impossible commitment at a terrible terrible cost! I may have liked the first part better, but they are both directly good and worth seeing. 3 stars for being good, and bonus for a couple of documentaries that had me feel better about my own humanity at the end. (Unlike the environmental documentaries about how eating meat or driving my car or watching these films is killing us all and wiping out the future for our children, etc. and so forth!)
Perhaps if one were so inclined to dream about some sort of violent or revenge porn, then hey, here we have plenty of fuel for the fire! Other than that, this is about as sexy as getting slapped in the face with a bag of dog poop. 0 on the kink scale. [Now with that said, I also have a theory that the most repressed people end up being the most sexually twisted. With that in mind, as those girls go off to college and get a taste of the real world… yeah, they might just get their freak on! You know, with all the fornication and stuff!]

Sand Sharks, Mark Atkins, 2011, USA.

 

Sand Sharks, Mark Atkins, 2011, USA.

Just for a second here I need to clamor up on my soapbox… OK. For all of you who poo poo’d this film and gave it really bad reviews while ripping it apart; This is a movie called SAND SHARKS! The cover art features a hot chick with bad special effects blood smeared on her as she stands waiting to be apparently eaten by a giant shark swimming at her through the sand… WTF did you expect!? OK. Coming down now. I have stated at length in other reviews here that not all films were destined to be four star material from the start. Some movies, like this one, are clearly made to be fun, tongue in cheek, and deliberately cheesy. I am as gullible as they get under normal everyday circumstances, but even I get the idea this wasn’t going to be JAWS for the 2010’s. Anyway, it is pretty much the best movie ever made regarding prehistoric man eating sharks that live in the sand, so there is something! The cinematography is generally good, with more or less bad special effects. The directing was linear, with a head scratching back story that may or may not have made much sense. It didn’t really have to make sense and perhaps we were done a favor as the pace was not hurt by a very typical phenomenon which is; Many movies (that take themselves more seriously) spend too long on backstory before getting to the “good stuff.” Perhaps “good stuff” is a bit of a stretch here anyway… The acting was spotty, with normal moments peppered with silliness and purpose built melodrama. I don’t think the actors are actually bad or amateurish, just in a silly movie. The story was so unbelievable that we automatically suspend our disbelief and just go with it. Bonus for the dialog about someones brother “still making those stupid shark movies?” I love when movies that know they are bad simply admit it on screen! So while I can’t exactly recommend this film to anyone in particular, or anyone not particular, but I may accept that it is so bad that it is OK. Thus instead of a one star straight up bad, I will give it a 1 ½ star not for everyone (kind of bad).

One might assume that there would be lots of eye candy or cheap exploitative thrills to be found in a movie called Sand Sharks. While there is indeed some eye candy, it never ventures past rated G stuff, although that in itself is not particularly bad. There is sexual innuendo in the dialog here and there, and it is fairly adult oriented. The problem here is that a movie of this (rather low) caliber should thrive on the exploitation, it is one of the essential elements of B movies. Because it does not, it will never become a cult classic. Roger Corman made B movies in the “old days,” and carefully mixed bits of sleaze, raunch, and exploitation in B movie plot-lines, with the result of many of his films becoming cult classics. Think of it this way, a couple of friends are talking and one asks if the other if Sand Sharks was any good? The answer would likely be “not really.” And that would be the end of it right there. Those B movies that push the taste barrier in some sexual way may get the response “not really,” followed by a “but, you should see the scene where…” That moment… that extra thought, is precisely what makes the difference between cult status and forgotten. The best part about this thought is that there are many people who would disagree, perhaps even as they are backing up their hard drives and transferring all those Baywatch episodes, of course because the “plots” are so compelling! Anyhow, back to this film. The sexuality was not a complete no show, but not much of a show in the end. I am going to knock a half star off the kink score because I think it could easily have thrown in a bit more, to the point of thinking it had to work hard not to! ½ on the kink scale.

 

Dead of Night, Alberto Cavalcanti, Charles Critchton, Basil Dearden, and Robert Hamer, 1945, UK.

 

Dead of Night, Alberto Cavalcanti, Charles Critchton, Basil Dearden, and Robert Hamer, 1945, UK.

Yup. Four directors. Perhaps this is the first time a collaboration film like this, with different directors and different segments was made? After all it was 1945. Maybe? I don’t really know. I have tried different ways of looking it up but have been frustrated by my efforts. Well, I imagine it isn’t exactly the first time, but certainly it is an early effort! Now if we consider this type of collaboration film in general, there are a few problems that often come up. One is that the mechanism that ties them all together often feels thrown in. Another is that the segments feel inconsistent which makes a bit of sense considering they are done by different people. The first “problem” was not really a factor here, as the way the story-line worked it made perfect sense as to why there would be multiple stories within it. The second “problem” of consistency, is more evident as such. The stories ranged between short, humorous, and interesting, to drawn out, serious, and somewhat muddled. The cinematography is surprisingly consistent, and has a “studio/on location” feel to it. In other words, it seems that they probably converted some old manor house and a farm house into working studios or went all out on soundstage set design, which is commendable! The direction, while split four ways, was not too far off, with some consistency problems and perhaps a somewhat awkward tonality range… Yet the way it is edited makes it rather easy to follow and kept it from getting too out of hand or boring to look at. The acting was not particularly even, with some rather convincing and some rather paint by number roles. Its a wash in that respect. The only thing to add to the story-line that I have not spoken of is the ending. I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so I can’t come right out and say what the “problem” for me was… None the less, its to do with where the story begins and where it may end. Once you watch it, you will completely make sense of this. Perhaps you will disagree that it is a problem, but at least you will be able to understand where I am coming from. Depending on how you interpret the ending (good or bad!) you will probably be a half star off one way or another. I will say that it is a balancing act between the different stories and how it all weaves together, and go with 2 stars average fare on this one.

Sexuality is pretty much void in this film as it was (and still is!) under the scrutiny of the British censorship board. Not that it would have or should have had much in the world of sexuality, that is more of a direct dig on the UK censorship system and why on earth they feel the political need to keep it going? Anyhow, 0 on the kink scale.

 

10 Things I Hate about You, Gil Junger, 1999, USA

 

10 Things I Hate about You, Gil Junger, 1999, USA

I actually had no real intention of sitting through this film. Teen romcom/ light dramas are not typically my cup of tea, although I am quite willing to sit through most genres now and then. What caught my attention for the first few seconds is that it was quite an early Heath Ledger film and I was curious to see if he was a force to be reckoned with at that point. I also recognized some of the other actors and found the story interesting enough to keep going on past my “10 minute rule.” [My 10 minute “rule” is actually a guideline I use to determine whether or not I am going to invest the time in continuing through to the end of any particular film. If I am not into a film at the 10 minute mark, and have a distinct feeling its not going to get much better anytime soon, I will simply stop watching for that session. The rule of thumb is to allow AT LEAST 10 minutes of the film to go by before you make that call, I have had that sinking feeling after the first 3 seconds sometimes, but very rarely do I decide to pull the plug by the 10 minute mark, and even when I do I eventually get back to the film in question. Once I get past round about the 10 minute mark, I will watch any film (no matter how discomforting) to the bitter end!] Luckily in the case of 10 Things I Hate about You, I wasn’t particularly discomforted on the rest of the journey to the credits.

The cinematography is at times travelog, and generally standard Hollywood studio fare. The general feeling of the film is bordering to experiential which I tend to like. (It is where we are allowed to look past the specific scene being shot to see what else is going on around it through wider shots or panoramic type views.) It makes the film more busy or alive in a way that really specific point of view films don’t. The directing was obviously doing both foreground and background work throughout, and kept it at a decent pace and steady tone. The editing is linear and the story stays clear and unmuddled. The acting is exactly as one would expect for such a genre, some is a bit melodramatic, some is touchingly good, and most is sufficient for the telling of the story. The story-line itself is simple and engaging in a mild sort of way. It suffers from the common problem of movie time vs real life time in how relationships develop and fail, and it is also a paint by number predictable film. Even with the problems it is not entirely unpleasant to watch and there will always remain a bittersweet sadness that goes with watching an actor at work who died before their time. I rate this film 2 ½ stars for being average for the most part but getting a bit of a boost by using experiential cinematography to give it more environmental spunk.

When it comes to sex and sexuality in romcoms or light dramas put out by Hollywood studios, you can go down the checklist, with a couple of modifications here and there. The big picture checklist COULD include; Some female breast scenes, mostly with lingerie. Some overall underwear or nightwear shots, a couple mild to somewhat steamy sex scenes, much innuendo and implied sex stuff, eye candy for whichever sexual persuasion you are, and mostly smoochy smoochy stuff with the occasional tongue thrown in for good measure! Here we have some smoochy smoochy, some general eye candy, and a sprinkling of sexual language. There is also an implied breast flashing… Perhaps this one was even a tad tame for a typical romcom! Really, I got nothin’ here… 0 on the kink scale.

 

Shooter, Antoine Fuqua, 2007, USA.

Shooter, Antoine Fuqua, 2007, USA.

Quick quiz: What is the difference between a thriller and an action movie? Answer; Suspense. An action movie only requires action while a thriller requires both some action and a strong dose of suspense (or mystery). Generally we can look at westerns or martial arts films as action movies because they have very black and white defined good guys and bad guys and the action comes when they fight it out. Spy and crime movies are often considered thrillers because given enough action sequences, they also have the requisite mystery and suspense to fit the genre requirements.

Why the question now? Well, I actually had thought Shooter was going to be an action movie straight up. The opening sequence makes it seem so, and it continues along those lines, but when it veers into thriller territory, it never really looks back. However, there is a small issue that pretty much always comes up in cases like this… If a movie is coming from a suspense or mystery background and ratchets up in tension until all action hell breaks loose, it becomes a thriller via the requisite action sequences which are an added bonus over the story-line. But to take an action movie with all its visceral pleasures and try to dress it up a bit to give it a more sophisticated story-line it is bound to be a bit rough around the edges in so far as plot points and subtleties are concerned. (After all, action movies don’t get their fans from being subtle!) Shooter certainly gives the impression that it was pretty much meant to be an action film that so happened to have a sub-plot that gives it thriller status. I should note at this moment that I do believe that the story-line in Shooter is actually quite OK. This whole concept is simply something I have observed over many years of action/ thriller movie watching. Movies that start out with deep story driven plots that “fit in” action sequences can really be top notch thrillers, movies that start out with action as concept, and try to build stories around these action elements are tougher sells. Even though Shooter was based on a book, it feels like the concept for the movie was to fill it with action at the cost of a well told story.

The cinematography is top notch and most of the special effects and location work was real. The editing was linear, pace quite excellent, and the tone remained serious but hopeful with just a blip at the end. The director smoothed out the acting and no one person overshadowed another too much and we really did want to know the “rest of the story.” The acting was professional, with a touch of melodrama here and there, probably a bit better then the average action movie overall. The story itself suffers from being sacrificed a bit too much for the sake of action sequences. I never read the book, but I can’t imagine it lacks detail that the movie does in some of the questions it naturally raises. However, there is good news. Even if I hated the story-line, which I didn’t, I would still like the movie because of all the other elements that while somewhat juvenile, made it quite fun to watch. To sum it up, as long as you ONLY take the story at face value and do not overthink it, this is absolutely a fun, even edge of your seat action/ thriller. Just don’t (for instance) dwell too long on the ending, or wonder what motivated the bad guys or anything like that! So I will give an honorary three star rating to this film, but an actual 2 ½ stars because I don’t really do too well with not overthinking stuff!

As typical for most Hollywood action movies, the sexuality is sparse. There are moments of vanilla petting, and Mark Wahlberg being half naked and quite ripped. There is also some bondage and implied sexual menace and two scenes of devices meant to do harm against ones will. Maybe the one quick bondage scene could be considered a touch sexy but for the most part it is not a very sexual movie. ½ on the kink scale.