1) get John out of NYC

2) Continental vs High Table - if you've got a High Table, how can you have people just taking out a hit on members of the ruling body? Seems weird, of course, I'm not an assassin.

3) sides are chosen - I'm betting on Winston, Charon, Aurelio, maybe the Bowery King to be on John's side.
Uptown was the sister's, the brother was going to take it over - now what?

4) location? Oooo, yummy!
I vote for Montreal! ( like the opening sequence, shot on Ste Catherine, the busiest street on downtown Montreal)

As much as I loved it, though, it did cement in my mind that Wick is absolutely not an example of the "assassin with a heart of gold" trope. Critics and fans alike seemed determined to stick that label on him in the first movie, which makes no sense because a good, rational, decent man who'd had genuine moral qualms about his profession would never have gone on a tear like that in the first place. I see him as someone who just got tired of the universe screwing him over - as beautifully illustrated by the montage of his wife's death mixed in with the dog's death - and, as someone who had the requisite tools and skills, decided he would do something about it. I can relate to that feeling, and I think it's a much more interesting shading than just "good guy forced to do bad things," which to my mind is wholly inaccurate. (Not that you guys don't know this, I'm just tired of reading it everywhere.) And it's consistent with his decisions in the second movie. He claimed he didn't have a choice except to carry out the marker, but he could've refused the job and suffered the penalty. It's just that when push comes to shove, his own desire to survive outweighs everything else. I think that and Santino's observation about John being addicted to the vengeance pretty well sum up John's dark side. The sympathy he engendered the first time round apparently obscured some of this for a lot of people who (from what I've read) consistently misinterpret the character. But it's all there between the lines in the first movie, and this outing really crystallized it thanks to Keanu's incredible portrayal of a character who's even more complex than I realized. I found it stunning that one second he's holding Gianna's hand with what I believed to be genuine sympathy and the next he's blowing a hole in her skull. Another moment I loved was when he fished out his wife's bracelet from the rubble at his house and held it to his chest, eyes closed. I thought that was a gorgeous way of reinforcing that everything John's fighting for is already gone, as he's now realizing.

So. Can't wait for the Blu-ray, thrilled to see the sequel, but I'm also kind of thinking he should die at the end of it.

Q: Do we think Gianna's suicide was a copout to try to make John a little less evil? I'm of two minds.

He's much more complex than any similar figure I've seen on film. Wow.

IT'S. NOT. BLANKNESS. Please, critics, do some freaking homework and analyze what it is that makes this man's performances so good instead of slapping the same lazy, tired label on it again.

I had no name for it until now, but I finally figured out that what makes him so compelling when he's not speaking is that all the emotions needed for a given moment are already on his face when that moment or scene starts. You don't see him working into an emotion; he feels it and displays it before the audience is necessarily even aware of what emotion to look for. Then you see him, it's all there, and you understand everything even as you're shocked by the beauty and power of the display.

That is the opposite of blankness.

2) no, I think he has genuine sympathy for Gianna AND he's doing what he was contracted to do. Both / and.
My reasoning? Keanu the actor always working both / and, the paradox.
How often do we see that in film?

---

Do we think Gianna's suicide was a copout to try to make John a little less evil?

---

I don't think so.
I think it was just what she said it was: her going her way. Her way of 'giving the finger to the rules'. John would have killed her anyway. He had to, otherwise the penalty for refusing was his death. But what she said before killing herself... that's what triggered something in John. 'What would your Helen think about that? [Santino getting to rule NY] What would your Helen think about you?'

It also sets the tone for John's later decision to kill Santino... the whole movie is about 'breaking the rules'.

John had to kill Gianna. But he also had to kill Santino, all rules be damned, because Santino alive and ruling NY 'his' way was simply not an option, for anyone in that world. It's not just about 'burning down his house and forcing him to obey the marker'. It's about, as John so succintly put it, 'finishing it'. It was John who made it possible for Santino to get the 'seat', it was John who put it 'right' - well, right by that world, anyway. He obeyed the rules - then sent them to hell - and himself in the process too, if that was the price to pay to honor what Helen thought of the 'other' John...
Because in the end, yes, it's still about Helen... sort of. As that scene with the bracelet shows...
And yes, as allhailkingjack said, that has 'finished', too. That John is now gone. Only John Wick remains.

It's rarely seen onscreen - it's very subtle. It's excellent film acting, and those who don't recognize it are indeed lazy and stupid.

---

but I'm also kind of thinking he should die at the end of it.

---

I certainly hope that's the way they will end it. Because that's the only way for the story to go full circle; because that's what happens in all myths; because it's a story, not a(nother) Lionsgate franchise...

Basically, it's about story vs money.
Let's see which wins :|

---

Keanu the actor always working both / and, the paradox.

---

That's what I loved so much about his portrayal of Wick, especially in Chapter 2. He constantly bumps me up against my moral boundaries, makes me think, and shows me there's no clear-cut resolution to any of it.

---

It was John who made it possible for Santino to get the 'seat', it was John who put it 'right' - well, right by that world, anyway. He obeyed the rules - then sent them to hell - and himself in the process too, if that was the price to pay to honor what Helen thought of the 'other' John...

---

Brilliant! Wish I'd thought of it. ;) This adds so many more layers to the story for me - but then you've always been good like that, LucaM.

---

I had no name for it until now, but I finally figured out that what makes him so compelling when he's not speaking is that all the emotions needed for a given moment are already on his face when that moment or scene starts. You don't see him working into an emotion; he feels it and displays it before the audience is necessarily even aware of what emotion to look for. Then you see him, it's all there, and you understand everything even as you're shocked by the beauty and power of the display.

---

THAT.
I never had words for it either, but this is what it is :)

It goes back for me a little bit to the fact that he's not a Method actor and we're so used to seeing that. He works in a very particular way, one that I find truthful and compelling.
He's always wrestling with morality and ethics. We don't see much of that, in film or in the culture at large. I think that's one of our biggest problems, at least in America.

It's really easy to be "anything goes, I want what I want, I'm gonna get it" (the Cheeto)
Or
"I don't want anything, wanting is bad."

Life happens in between those two things, those two extremes = the Middle Way (again, still)

thanks for mentioning it !

---

So yeah - I'm still thinking - what other actors do this? I seriously have no comparison.

---

Same. I can't think of anyone else who does what he does. Maybe that's why he never gets award recognition.

My husband, who saw the movie with me and loved it, joked that he hopes Keanu someday gets his due and wins an Oscar, then turns around and makes Bill and Ted 3 just to stick it to the haters. Heh.

(Edited because I say "great" too much.)