Movie Review – “Elektra”

The latest Marvel adaptation isn’t quite as good as
the movie it spun off from.

Cast, Crew, and Other Info

Jennifer Garner as Elektra Natchios

Goran Visnjic as Mark Miller

Kirsten Prout as Abby Miller

Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa as Roshi

Terence Stamp as Stick

Natassia Malthe as Typhoid Mary

Will Yun Lee as Kirigi

Colin Cunningham as McCabe

Written by Raven Metzner, Zak Penn and Stu Zicherman,
based on
characters by Frank Miller

Directed by Rob Bowman

Complete information is available from the
IMDB
.

Past movie reviews can be found here.

Premise

Elektra, back from the dead, is hired to assassinate
her neighbours.

High Point

Stick plays pool.

Low Point

Elekta’s change of heart comes across as a bit too
sudden. It looks
like they were trying to make it accessible to those
who haven’t seen
Daredevil by just failing to mention
anything that happened
in that film. While this makes sense without seeing
Daredevil (or, at least, makes as much sense
as it would if
you have seen Daredevil) there is some
character motivation
involved that really requires a stronger reminder of
her relationship
with her father to really work.

The Scores

How original is this film? It’s an
adaptation, which is a
bit of a problem already, but it’s also a standard
“good vs. evil,
protect the innocent” story as well. If you’ve seen
other martial
arts movies or fantasy movies, you’ll have seen
pretty much everything
there is to see here. I give it 2 out of 6.

The effects may have been the best executed
element of the
film. Even Tattoo looks good, which is hard in a
film like this. I
give it 5 out of 6.

The story is sparse, simplistic, and
predictable. The story
is not the reason to see this movie. It gets the job
done, and sets
up some action sequences, but that’s it. There’s
nothing particularly
powerful or driving involved. I give it 3 out of 6.

The acting is actually pretty good, even
from the young
actress playing Abby (Kirsten Prout). Terence Stamp
does an excellent
job as Stick. Jennifer Garner is decent as Elektra,
too, but the
writing for her character involves some sudden
emotional shifts that
don’t quite play off properly. I suspect that it’s
more of a writing
problem than an acting problem, as there wasn’t a
proper transition,
but you’ll notice it first from her acting. I give
it 4 out of 6.

The emotional response was weak. The story
was just too
predictable to generate any sort of suspense. There
were a few
laughs, but that’s about it. The complete package is
actually rather
bland. I give it 3 out of 6.

The production was fairly good. Bowman
recruited several of
his past co-workers from The X-Files, so
we’ve got a team
that can do a good job. For some reason, though, it
just doesn’t
quite pull together the way they used to. There are
an irritating
number of lens flares that remind you that you’re
watching a movie,
and several of the action sequences are shot much too
close to really
follow what’s going on. I give it 4 out of 6.

Overall, it’s not a terrible film, but it’s
certainly not
great. Most of you will probably want to wait until
it’s out on video
instead. I give it 3 out of 6.

In total, Elektra receives 24 out of 42.

7 replies on “Movie Review – “Elektra””

  1. y42 says:

    That’s just mean!
    The latest Marvel adaptation isn’t quite as good as the movie it spun off from.

    Oh, snap! : )

    Yet, they both ended up with a total score of 24…

    • Babbster says:

      Re: That’s just mean!

      The latest Marvel adaptation isn’t quite as good as the movie it spun off from.

      Oh, snap! : )

      Yet, they both ended up with a total score of 24…

      It was probably a 23.5 rounded up.

      • fiziko says:

        Re: That’s just mean!

        It was probably a 23.5 rounded up.

        For one thing, Elektra had significantly better
        effects, which can pull up the total score with a lower
        overall score. For another, we had two different
        reviewers. Had I reviewed Daredevil, it probably
        would have scored closer to 27 or 28. I’m tempted to pick
        up the director’s cut, as I’m told it’s significantly
        better. If I do, I may review that one as well as the
        original.

        • nkuzmik says:

          Re: That’s just mean!

          It was probably a 23.5 rounded up.

          For one thing, Elektra had significantly better
          effects, which can pull up the total score with a lower
          overall score. For another, we had two different
          reviewers. Had I reviewed Daredevil, it probably
          would have scored closer to 27 or 28. I’m tempted to pick
          up the director’s cut, as I’m told it’s significantly
          better. If I do, I may review that one as well as the
          original.

          My biggest problems were with the pacing of the story. There was little flow from one element to the next.

    • Philo says:

      Re: That’s just mean!

      The latest Marvel adaptation isn’t quite as good as the movie it spun off from.

      Oh, snap! : )

      Yet, they both ended up with a total score of 24…

      Speaking of which, and this is not a flame… I find the rating system really useless. Whether it’s a movie the author really loves, or a crappy one, it seems the final score is always something around 20-30, and the score feels absolutely meaningless.

      I don’t know if it’s the way things are dissected, really. One movie, which might have the best story and FX ever, might score 4 points out of 42 above another with average all-around qualities. It just doesn’t feel like the score means anything at all.

      • Erf says:

        OT: Rating system
        I find the rating system used here far more useful than most. The “Overall” rating, I think, corresponds exactly to the conventional “N out of 10” or “X stars” system most places use, so that’s the one you want to look at to see what the reviewer thought of the movie in general. But the rest of the breakdown is very useful to me: it tells me a lot about what it was like to watch the film. So if I’m looking for a mindless action-fest or mind-blowing special effects, I can ignore the “story” element — and vice versa.

        The total score, as I see it, is not a measure of how enjoyable the film is — that’s what “Overall” is for, IMHO. The total score shows how much attention the makers gave to all aspects of the movie (or whatever’s being reviewed). If you make a histogram of all reviews ever done, it should be (roughly) a strongly-peaked bell curve, since you’re adding up 6 effectively random numbers.

        I think the total score can give some idea of how “serious” the makers were about the piece. Something with a very high score will have a good story, good effects, good production, etc — they took the whole process very seriously. Something with a mediocre total probably has an emphasis on just one or two aspects of the process. Low scores probably indicate something that at least borders on being a B movie.

        That’s the way I see it, anyway; I don’t know if that’s what the B42 folks intended, of course. ;) But I do find B42 reviews very informative in telling me what kind of movie it is and whether I’d enjoy it. (This is due to both the rating system itself and the overall style of the review.) They also focus on what the movie was like, rather than recapping the entire plot like so many more “mainstream” reviews do. (Grr.)

        A thought: it might be neat to quote both the “Overall” and “Total” scores in the review blurb. Not necessary, but it’s a thought. :)

  2. is says:

    Daredevil better?
    Frankly, I thought Elektra was better than Daredevil… I gave Daredevil 5 out of 10, Elektra got 6 out of 10. Daredevil’s problem was Ben Affleck and lack of story. Elektra’s problem was definitely the story.
    Action wise, Elektra was pretty OK, plenty of butt-kicking and effects as expected. much to predictable though.

Comments are closed.