The Gray Man: Movie Review
An examination of movie bias, action movies, Netflix bias, Russo brother's bias, and the state of good movies today.
Contains no real spoilers.
This is a really good action movie. Which may need the qualifier, in my opinion, because the reviews to the new Netflix action movie were very mixed. The Gray Man’s star studded cast was led by Ryan Gosling, Chris Evans, Ana de Armas, and Billy Bob Thornton.
What’s intellectually fascinating is how so many people can really like this movie and others think it was absolutely terrible. The professional critics seemed particularly down on it. And this brings us to the idea of subjectivity versus objectivity in art. And art versus commerce, as well. Sure you can’t tell a person their opinion is wrong. But there are better opinions. “And that is a scientific fact,” said the great movie sportscaster Champ Kind from Anchorman. (Albeit about a rather different and much more inappropriate subject.)
What is interesting about some of this movie’s criticism is it fall shorts of objectivity. A more objective criticism would be too much CGI. And while a lot of the CGI in recent movies, especially Marvel movies, leaves a lot to be desired; there is a lot to be said for more practical effects. But it wasn’t a dealbreaker in The Gray Man.
What’s good and fun about this movie is the creative action set pieces, the incredible hand to hand combat, and the gun fights. Maybe the critics have a higher bar for realism here. And found the near invincibility of Gosling’s character off-putting. I found it enjoyable and realistic enough. I’m all for grounded realism, even in an action thriller, but it’s a movie. Not an exact retelling of Seal Team Six. When the fight scenes defy the laws of physics or enter into superhero territory, that is displeasing. Which relates to a problem that the recent Marvel movies are having with their superheroes. If they have too much power then it becomes boring and trite to watch. (Yes, I’m talking about the Eternals. Talk about a movie gone very wrong.)
I could also see how a huge action fan who’s seen way more movies in the genre found this a little too derivative. There is a fine line between copying another movie in an unoriginal way. And paying homage or being derivative, but with an interesting twist.
So are there too many critics blinded by subjective bias here? Is film snobbery at play? I consider myself somewhat of a film snob, in that I have very high standards for what I watch. In the age of streaming why wouldn’t you? But those standards vary by genre.
Similarly, I like movies that make me think. That say something about culture, history, psychology, and the bigger life themes in general. This movie only had a little bit to say about themes like human psychology, love, family, violence, and government or military overreach. This is a CIA movie, but it’s less important who the good guys and bad guys are at a meta level. It’s more of a simplistic good versus evil tale. While not being as true to life and geopolitics, it makes for more of a fun lighthearted movie.
If you expected the movie to say something deeper about American politics, military contractors, and the military industrial complex this is not the movie for you. I’d recommend a good book about the history of the CIA. Which I’ll warn you is pretty depressing. Even the most realistic movies are not really equipped to examine such nuanced issues. A lot of critics like to view war and action movies in simplistic terms. Like the U.S. in World War 2 is good. Or the U.S. in Vietnam is bad. But that doesn’t do justice to the complexities of war and the real morality lessons that underpin international relations.
This may be an idiosyncratic take, but I thought the movie did a good job of implying that there is probably a decent amount of shadowy military spy stuff that goes on without public notice because there is a market for it. And the media is not as ever-present in developing countries. Even the hero Gosling is not exactly a good guy for a couple of different reasons.
A lot of the subjectivity in the critiques come from an anti-Netflix bias. Or an anti-Anthony and Joe Russo bias, The Russo brothers are on a short list of the most financially successful movies of all time because of their directing in two Avengers Infinity Saga movies and two Captain America movies. All critics think Marvel and the Avengers is good for the movie business right?
If this movie was made by a first time director would it have gotten a 45% from critics on Rotten Tomatoes? Also, when the critics score is very different from the audience score, a 91%, bias is more likely to be in play. There is a difference between a critical reviewer that has high standards versus one that is centered around personal animus, consciously or unconsciously.
Because this movie had a very limited theatrical release and Netflix doesn’t divulge a lot of specific stats on their movies it’s hard for critics to gauge the movie’s success monetarily. If this movie posted tangible box office numbers maybe critics would have been more self-critical about why the average fan really liked this movie and they didn’t. It was trending number 1 on Netflix when it first came out. Which was part of what prompted Netflix to announce a sequel. With the intention to start their own action franchise. Sequels is the name of the game in Hollywood today.
The Netflix bias is interesting to explore in light of their terrible stock performance in 2022. Remember when people were lamenting how big, powerful, rich, and unstoppable Netflix was becoming? (Big business bias anyone?) How the streaming giant was ruining movies and TV with their non-theatrical releases and their bingeable content?
Netflix is a fascinating company because they disrupted an industry. (We’ll never forget you Blockbuster and local video stores). But like every company that makes excess profits, other companies come along and try to take away their early advantages. Enter Hulu, Amazon Prime, Disney Plus, HBO Max, Peacock, and Paramount Plus. With this amount of competent competitors and with libraries of content that predate Netflix’s existence, it was only a matter of time that Netflix faltered.
Also at play here is the “too big for your own britches” phenomenon. When you’re in the content creation or artistic business, and your main focus is how to make the public stock price go up in perpetuity, you’re setting yourself up for a hard fall. No single company can have a monopoly on the best TV and movie content. It’s too hard, and art is not like baking a cake with an easy to follow recipe.
Marvel is a lightning rod for criticism because of it’s unprecedented success and how it’s leading superhero franchise movies to dominate the movie industry. This begs the question are superhero movies crowding out more original, varied, and dramatic pieces of art? There is something to this criticism, but it’s overblown. There’s an Econ 101 misunderstanding of the movie business. Critics seem to think that studio executives only greenlight movies that reach certain criteria like having a big star attached or being an IP franchise. And their mostly right. But they never seem to give them enough credit when they guess right by greenlighting dramas that seem like they shouldn’t work.
The 2021 Warner Bros. movie Dune, based off the Frank Herbert novel, was no sure thing. Even with a great director in Denis Villeneuve and starring Timothée Chalamet. If movie making was a science, most movies would be liked by audiences and would make money. But it’s more art than science. Meaning one has to make educated guesses and gambles to make a good movie, let alone a great one. How many studios and directors set out to lose money?
Legendary screenwriter William Goldman talked in a Charlie Rose interview about how easy it is for something to go wrong in a movie. From a diva actor not wanting to come out of their trailer, to losing the daylight while shooting a pivotal scene.
The Gray Man didn’t revolutionize the genre. And what’s interesting and good about watching movies and movie criticism in general is how two people can watch the same movie and have different experiences and levels of enjoyment. This movie was much closer to a great action movie than it was to a bad movie that didn’t work for a variety of reasons. The performances were all strong, rich, and funny. But hey, maybe I’m just biased.