(912-word review) I watched this in December 2017, a month after its release, and again in August 2019. The first time was when I watched shows and films without writing anything about it, for the most part, since there's a whopping total of three "reviews" (more like one sentence) that I posted on Trakt in 2017. But, from 2018 to 2020, they improved to a few more sentences: not to "actual" reviews yet; that started at the end of 2020. March 2022 is when they became "efficient" in my eyes.
My point is this: I "reviewed" (https://trakt.tv/comments/248054) this film in 2019, and while my "review" was "better" than the ones in 2018-2019, that was only in the form of having a few more sentences; it was still pretty terrible.
The overall summary of it is that I thought it was underwhelming for an action film, that the fight choreography wasn't that good (and that the sound effects were way worse), and that I may've considered Dylan O'Brien's performance slightly subpar (that part is iffy because I wasn't clear enough with that part of my "review" for the present me to be 100% on the same page).
Now, with a broader scope of looking at television and cinema, particularly the mindset of writing proper reviews/my thoughts, there was barely any change concerning my feelings this time. I feel the same way regarding those things, give or take.
This film had an apparent lack of excitement behind it, contradicting the necessary and expected essence of action films. The fight choreography was so-so, with decent enough (but not good enough) editing (at times), and the sound effects were dreadful; the fact that they got through to the final product is embarrassing.
And Dylan O'Brien's performance, likely contrary to what his fans thought/think, especially the hardcore ones, aka the stans, wasn't "noteworthy." The way it looks, he doesn't fit the profile for a role like this; the lackluster writing didn't do him any favors, though.
He's not terrible, but overall, he isn't A-Lister material – yet; that may change eventually – like his fans have made themselves believe, and the parasocial relationship many of them have "with him" is – well, hilarious. There, I said it. Do you have your pitchforks at the ready? ("B-but, h-he was S-shirtLess!!! H-he wa-s SOOOO MAnlY!!!! A-aNND RIPPeD AND RUGGED!?? U KNOW!!!? OMGGG!*& hsakhahadhp HOW DARRRRREE U!???!?)
While the first hour was serviceable at best, making you wish it was a tiny bit better at the very least, the rest of the film was less so – and, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure why; it felt less so, and I don't care enough to rack my brain trying to grasp why.
I also didn't care about the sidebar attempt at implanting character depth (for both characters) so far into the story through this weird dynamic with Mitch and Annika that comes across as stereotypical-female-character = love interest that must be mandatory at this point in the film industry, yet somehow self-aware that it's bad writing at the same time – but the writers didn't follow through with it, so everything's good! Why insert that expectation in the first place by ALMOST doing it? To NOT do it? Uh, okay. It was "there for appearances' sake."
In actuality, the best was before an hour. Everything up to Mitch's training completion was the best, followed by what came after, up to 'the death.' The serviceableness continued after that briefly, but that was the start of the "downfall." Criminal misuse of Scott Adkins – he didn't even have a spotlight for his martial arts prowess – but why cast him in the first place? With someone like him, why would you not utilize his capabilities? Tragic.
On top of that, Ronnie 'Ghost' Kitsch was such a snooze-worthy antagonist – not to mention torturing someone right next to the nuke for Stan to follow along with the plot (he's one of us, you guys! Awww!). Diabolical! Innovative! Top-Tier Antagonist! Sorry, I meant to say dumb: antagonist and the writing.
He was even tough to dislike – no, I'm not saying he was likable – as is the intention with antagonists: being dislikable. Instead, he was so dull. If you're having trouble falling asleep at night, look no further; your solution is right here.
Also, what was up with the car explosion? Don't get me wrong – I know the "point" was so Irene would know their location to then send the plot device (other known as a helicopter) to Stan for him to deliver this SHOCKING order to 'Awww, he's dense' Mitch – "Throw the bomb overboard!" – but I don't think the cause made much sense.
The most significant props I can give are to, 1.) Steven Price, the composer, whose score was good. It immediately brought Brian Tyler to my mind because it sounded similar to his work for the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 in 2011 – and 2.) Michael Keaton, whose performance was undoubtedly the best one, but it ventured somewhat into comic buffoonery with the torture scene.
On a lesser level, one part of Michael Cuesta's direction was good in the form of particular shots, and so were bits and pieces of Enrique Chediak's cinematography, helped by the work of the location managers.
As per the course of peak cinema, all you need are four writers (!?) and Dylan O'Brien, whose only purpose is to look rugged and be shirtless a few times for the villainy cabal of stans.
Review by LineageBlockedParent2023-05-24T20:13:32Z
(912-word review) I watched this in December 2017, a month after its release, and again in August 2019. The first time was when I watched shows and films without writing anything about it, for the most part, since there's a whopping total of three "reviews" (more like one sentence) that I posted on Trakt in 2017. But, from 2018 to 2020, they improved to a few more sentences: not to "actual" reviews yet; that started at the end of 2020. March 2022 is when they became "efficient" in my eyes.
My point is this: I "reviewed" (https://trakt.tv/comments/248054) this film in 2019, and while my "review" was "better" than the ones in 2018-2019, that was only in the form of having a few more sentences; it was still pretty terrible.
The overall summary of it is that I thought it was underwhelming for an action film, that the fight choreography wasn't that good (and that the sound effects were way worse), and that I may've considered Dylan O'Brien's performance slightly subpar (that part is iffy because I wasn't clear enough with that part of my "review" for the present me to be 100% on the same page).
Now, with a broader scope of looking at television and cinema, particularly the mindset of writing proper reviews/my thoughts, there was barely any change concerning my feelings this time. I feel the same way regarding those things, give or take.
This film had an apparent lack of excitement behind it, contradicting the necessary and expected essence of action films. The fight choreography was so-so, with decent enough (but not good enough) editing (at times), and the sound effects were dreadful; the fact that they got through to the final product is embarrassing.
And Dylan O'Brien's performance, likely contrary to what his fans thought/think, especially the hardcore ones, aka the stans, wasn't "noteworthy." The way it looks, he doesn't fit the profile for a role like this; the lackluster writing didn't do him any favors, though.
He's not terrible, but overall, he isn't A-Lister material – yet; that may change eventually – like his fans have made themselves believe, and the parasocial relationship many of them have "with him" is – well, hilarious. There, I said it. Do you have your pitchforks at the ready? ("B-but, h-he was S-shirtLess!!! H-he wa-s SOOOO MAnlY!!!! A-aNND RIPPeD AND RUGGED!?? U KNOW!!!? OMGGG!*& hsakhahadhp HOW DARRRRREE U!???!?)
While the first hour was serviceable at best, making you wish it was a tiny bit better at the very least, the rest of the film was less so – and, to tell you the truth, I'm not sure why; it felt less so, and I don't care enough to rack my brain trying to grasp why.
I also didn't care about the sidebar attempt at implanting character depth (for both characters) so far into the story through this weird dynamic with Mitch and Annika that comes across as stereotypical-female-character = love interest that must be mandatory at this point in the film industry, yet somehow self-aware that it's bad writing at the same time – but the writers didn't follow through with it, so everything's good! Why insert that expectation in the first place by ALMOST doing it? To NOT do it? Uh, okay. It was "there for appearances' sake."
In actuality, the best was before an hour. Everything up to Mitch's training completion was the best, followed by what came after, up to 'the death.' The serviceableness continued after that briefly, but that was the start of the "downfall." Criminal misuse of Scott Adkins – he didn't even have a spotlight for his martial arts prowess – but why cast him in the first place? With someone like him, why would you not utilize his capabilities? Tragic.
On top of that, Ronnie 'Ghost' Kitsch was such a snooze-worthy antagonist – not to mention torturing someone right next to the nuke for Stan to follow along with the plot (he's one of us, you guys! Awww!). Diabolical! Innovative! Top-Tier Antagonist! Sorry, I meant to say dumb: antagonist and the writing.
He was even tough to dislike – no, I'm not saying he was likable – as is the intention with antagonists: being dislikable. Instead, he was so dull. If you're having trouble falling asleep at night, look no further; your solution is right here.
Also, what was up with the car explosion? Don't get me wrong – I know the "point" was so Irene would know their location to then send the plot device (other known as a helicopter) to Stan for him to deliver this SHOCKING order to 'Awww, he's dense' Mitch – "Throw the bomb overboard!" – but I don't think the cause made much sense.
The most significant props I can give are to, 1.) Steven Price, the composer, whose score was good. It immediately brought Brian Tyler to my mind because it sounded similar to his work for the video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 in 2011 – and 2.) Michael Keaton, whose performance was undoubtedly the best one, but it ventured somewhat into comic buffoonery with the torture scene.
On a lesser level, one part of Michael Cuesta's direction was good in the form of particular shots, and so were bits and pieces of Enrique Chediak's cinematography, helped by the work of the location managers.
As per the course of peak cinema, all you need are four writers (!?) and Dylan O'Brien, whose only purpose is to look rugged and be shirtless a few times for the villainy cabal of stans.