For an action movie, it wasn't as thrilling to watch like it should've been or as thrilling as you'd expect. I'm not sure whether to consider that a bad thing or a good thing. The whole plot after what happened in regards to what changed Mitch was pretty subpar. It could've been because of the writing, and that's to blame. Maybe there was a similar plot in one of the books, but I'm sure it was done a whole lot better. Orion, a special, secret team of "Ghosts" was probably the only thing that was actually interesting, yet that wasn't further expanded on. There were a couple of cool moves as far as the fighting goes, but the choreography overall wasn't that good and the sound effects only made it worse. And the last fight sequence was the worse possible combination of the two. It was acted and choreographed in a way that made each attack look like it was hard, except the volume of the sound effects was set so low, for whatever reason, which took the immersion out of the fight, provided you were even immersed in it, to begin with. I'm a fan of Dylan O'Brien even though Teen Wolf is the only show/movie I've watched that he's in, but for this is be his second major movie, the first Maze Runner movie being the first and the rest excluded, being the main actor of, is disappointing.
(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.
This movie has been sitting on my unwatched shelf for quite a while and yesterday I finally got around to watch it.
I actually found this movie to be not too bad actually. It is far from a cinematic masterpiece but it is a pretty solid action/revenge movie. Dylan O’Brien is, unfortunately, pretty meh as the main character. Michael Keaton on the other hand is quite good in his character.
It is a reasonably action filled movie and I really like that they didn’t try to turn it into some PG-13 crap. It is sometimes fairly brutal. The story is okay. It works. It is not overly complex and some people are probably moaning about it not being original enough. Well, I say, so what? It is a good concept so why screw with it? I do like revenge movies and although this one is far from the best, it is not at all shabby.
I wonder why some people seems to be claiming that this movie is just crap, one star out of ten and so on and so forth? Is it maybe because it dares bring up the subject of Islamist fanatics killing innocents? Or maybe because it doesn’t try to sugarcoat things and explain these “poor misunderstood” psychopaths but lays the blame straight on said lowlife as well as on Iran? Or maybe because it doesn’t try to blame certain of today’s political retards’ preferred boogieman Russia?
I have not read the book so I guess, if it doesn’t do the book justice, I can somewhat understand not liking it. However, to me, this was a decent, not spectacular but decent, two hours of entertainment. Decent action, decent speed and (with the exception of O’Brien) decent acting.
Review by Dahj AshaBlockedParentSpoilers2022-05-10T22:51:04Z
Wow, quite brutal at times, but a good movie tbh.
That shooting at the beginning was so unexpected and brutal. Really shows the horror of such a situation! I was expecting something bad to happen but not that there would be such a mass shooting. It started so suddenly and resulted in immediate chaos.
They both should've ran though. Their chances would've been so much better than when looking/searching for one another during the shooting. I hope love doesn't make one so shortsighted. I'd definitely fear surviving alone though - that would suck. But it would still be the right/best decision to run.
That scene of the physicist in the trunk, the gasoline, and the cigarette was "funny" (horrible but kind funny in a stupid way).
Not as funny as the fake manual shifting in that automatic Alfa Rome though xD That was quite amusing somehow :)
Annika shooting herself like that (wow!) was just dumb. She might want to die first but she could've at least taken down the bad guy first. But then again that would've been an abrupt ending of the movie :D
I did like the ending. I really enjoyed the concept of letting the bomb explode (which is cool/fasciniating - as long as it isn't real) without the casualties (or at lest very few or just minor injuries).
But the explosion didn't seem that realistic (especially the implosion at the beginning - shouldn't that be at the end after the explosion?). Anyway, still fascinating!
The last scene was consing though. I guess he's undercover there? I didn't get the message of it. I guess he's fighting "bad guys" in general now?