Tag Archives: review

Movie Reviews

Alita: Battle Angel Review: A Pretty Face WIth Some Robotic Parts

Leave a comment

(Spoiler-free)

As a fan of dystopian stories and Japanese Manga storytelling, I have to say I’m surprised this one managed to sneak up on me like it did. I saw it today, and to get the technicalities out of the way, I have no familiarity with the source material, neither the graphic novels nor the 90s anime. I saw it in 2D, though if 3D is something you’re into, this one probably looks great in that format.

Alita: Battle Angel is set a few hundred years in the future. After great technological and economic advancements allowed us to build great cities in the sky, a great war brought all but one of them crashing back to Earth. Now the elites populating the last floating city of Tiphares lord over the rest of the human race living on the surface, benefitting from their excruciating labor and dumping their garbage down on them. One day, Doctor Ido of Iron City, who specializes in both humans and cyborgs, salvages the head and torso (“core”) of a humanoid cyborg that resembles a teenage girl, whose brain is still alive. He revives and rebuilds her to find that she’s lost her memory, retaining only vague images of combat.

Ido effectively adopts the girl, naming her Alita, and we discover this new world alongside her. The residents and way of life on Tiphares, and its mind-controlling leader Nova, are the stuff of legend and rumor. The only way to get there is to dominate the intense violent game of Motorball. The sport is central to the public consciousness and even the politics of Iron City, which is currently being terrorized by criminals murdering people and dismantling cyborgs for parts as means of gaining an advantage in Motorball, and a ruthless class of bounty hunters enlisted to stop them. From there, Alita makes a lot of dramatic discoveries about the people around her and her own past as she tries to survive this rough new environment and protect those she’s grown to care about.

First of all, as is obvious from the trailer and any material you’ve seen on this one, it’s a visual extravaganza. It definitely delivers on spectacle. Everything looks great. This isn’t surprising considering the people involved. Speaking of which, it would’ve been intriguing to be a fly on the wall and observe the working dynamic between director/ writer Robert Rodriguez and writer/ producer James Cameron, one of whom is famous for making relatively cheap movies that look expensive, and the other for making the most expensive movies ever, leaving an indelible mark on visual storytelling. In light of the 200 million dollar budget, it seems they went more with Cameron’s method; but whatever combination of practical sets, old-fashioned matte paintings, and CGI was employed, it all came out pretty seamless and quite dazzling.

But beyond the look of Iron City, this film’s greatest virtue is in its world-building. From the beginning, this setting feels authentic. It displays not only an impressive sci-fi landscape but a society with numerous embedded cultures. Everything from the citizens’ attitudes and behaviors, to their looks and fashion, to their games and recreational activities, comes off as organic. The world is gritty, raw, and feels lived-in. It’s not merely a backdrop but is part and parcel to the mythology and adds great symmetry and depth to Alita’s universe.

Of course, great world-building will only get you so far. Even the most breath-taking story environment will fall completely flat if certain other narrative cylinders aren’t firing, namely the characters (as evidenced by Ridley Scott’s Prometheus series). Alita’s characters are overall pretty solid. Most everyone fulfills a pertinent dramatic function, making for a nice “family tree” of interconnected players, and they’re well-acted by the excellent cast. Christoph Waltz is great as always. Rosa Salazar gives an excellent performance that really comes through her animated face equipped with Disney Eyes. The latest motion capture technology is really amazing that way. The weakest of the main characters is Alita’s dubiously necessary love interest played by Keean Johnson, the poor man’s Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I wouldn’t classify him as unbearable. The problem there is more with how he fits into the equation (more on this later). Jennifer Connely and Mahershala Ali do their jobs well in this, but there just isn’t much of a job for either of them to do, and here’s where we run into some trouble.

Alita’s plot falls victim to several of the standard hazards of an adaptation. The filmmakers (perhaps the studios) never seem to want to scale the source material’s story down to manageable proportions for a feature-length film. The M.O. seems to be, “throw in everything from the books that will fit and could possibly be appealing to someone, somewhere.” Mind you, these complications are handled better here than in most adaptations I’ve seen, but there are definitely some plot elements that are underdeveloped. Some of the most noticeable include moments of high drama that flare up spontaneously because it’s the right time for them to happen, extremely close relationships that form very quickly, intriguing interpersonal dynamics that are barely touched-on due to time constraints, and character motivations that change on a dime to accommodate the fast-moving plot. These issues never quite cross the line into absurdity, but it feels like a lot of wasted potential that could have been capitalized on by properly fleshing these things out in the next movie (or cutting them, I guess).

Last, and also least, there are numerous instances of my pet peeve offense: on-the-nose expository dialog. There is a lot to explain, in an unfamiliar setting, but for $200 million, it should be done with a little more style and smoothness than:

  • “It’s a harsh world. The strong prey on the weak down here.”
  • “You are someone very special, not just a teenage girl.”
  • Alita: “And I’m just an insignificant girl.” Hugo: “No, that’s what they want you to think.”
  • “I do not standby in the presence of evil.”

Honestly, the last one sounds like it was taken from the Japanese manga, run through Google Translator, and put right in the script.

So, that’s about it. Is Alita: Battle Angel worth seeing? Absolutely. Worth seeing at full price? Yep, and then some, because seeing it in 3D, multiscreen, supersound, 4DX with moving seats and pies to the face, or whatever can really make this a fun ride. Is it going change your life? Not likely, but it is what it is; a highly enjoyable world to visit for a few hours.

Movie Reviews

Halloween 2018 Review: Murder by Exposition

Leave a comment

(Spoiler-free)

Alright, this review is admittedly late to the party, but there is a method to the madness. I’ll get to it shortly…

First of all, this is a solid sequel and worthy addition to the series. It takes a purist approach by following the groundwork laid in Carpenter’s 1978 genre-creating classic; it doesn’t set arbitrary values for itself like “higher body count” or “more exotic killings,” it doesn’t add extraneous and tangential plot detours to desperately contrive enough story for a new movie, and it doesn’t eat up copious screen time pursuing answers to questions that nobody asked.

All in all, the plot, cinematography, score, and acting effectively elevate the film to such levels that they compensate for some of its lesser qualities and make for an enjoyable watch that’s uniquely worthy of a trip to the theater.

Big deal, you say. That reads like all the other reviews for this movie. So now we come to the reason for this one. There’s a screenwriting elephant in the room that no one seems to be talking about, and I think deserves some attention. Many of the script choices in this movie are highly questionable, and some are just plain weird. Some subplots don’t go anywhere, some “twists” are merely plot contrivances to serve convenient ends, etc. but these are relatively negligible and even forgivable as they tend to fall below the line of suspension of disbelief. My beef with the writing lies elsewhere.

More brutal than the stabs to heart or claw hammers to the skull is the dialog that lands squarely on the nose. And I mean RIGHT on it. Let’s look at one brief exchange from the trailer…

When protagonist Laurie confesses that she hoped spree killer Michael Myers would escape from prison, and she’s asked why; her stunning reply is “so I can kill him.” Now, trailer dialog always entails the caveat that we’re hearing it out of context, so we’re left to think that maybe there’s more to this conversation and it’ll play out much better in its totality. But, no. Like virtually everything from Halloween’s trailers, what we see is what we get.

As a friendly reminder, I liked this movie and Jamie Lee Curtis’ performance in it, but there is no measure for the awfulness of this line. The dramatic punch that the circumstances suggest it’s supposed to have falls miserably flat due to its blatancy, total lack of nuance, and utter failure to do its job of delivering the emotion of the character with a certain eloquent poetry that would never be uttered by a gruff old vigilante speaking of shooting a slasher in the face, but is called for in the name of satisfying storytelling.

In the words of Christopher McQuarrie, “think of what you want to say, and then don’t say it.” Dialog is never just a filmmaker-to-audience conduit for story information. It should be an ornament that adds flavor and style to the film, while covertly imparting exposition under the viewer’s nose. There is no more exigent situation for heeding this advice than this moment from Halloween. Countless preferable responses could have elevated that moment into something like what it was intended to be. Let’s explore a few…

Laurie: Do you know that I prayed every night that he would escape?
Hawkins: What the hell did you do that for?
Laurie: So I can kill him. So I can finish what Dr. Loomis started.

Or

Laurie: Because what he needs can’t be done while he’s locked up.

Or

Laurie: Some animals shouldn’t be caged. They have to be put down.

Or

Laurie: The cops and shrinks don’t know how to deal with him. I do.

Or

Laurie: Because he doesn’t deserve to die of old age.

See? None of these are great. They’re the product of about three minutes of brainstorming, but I’ll stand by any one of them as superior to that black hole of subtlety that made it into the film.

After really harping on that one line, I hate to say that it’s not the least bit rare among this film’s dialog. Every spoken word either serves to explain the plot to us or intimate precisely what the character is thinking, leaving absolutely nothing for us to decipher for ourselves. Need further evidence?

Martin: We’re here to investigate a patient that killed three innocent teenagers on Halloween, 1978. He was shot by his own psychiatrist and taken into custody that night, and has spent the last forty years in captivity.

Laurie: I need to protect my family. You have no security system, Karen.
Karen: Mom, you need help!
Laurie: Evil is real.

Laurie: He is a killer. But he will be killed tonight.

It is certainly true that Loomis had some musing monologues in the original that were borderline clunky (and would have been laughable if not delivered by the likes of Donald Pleasance), but that can be at least partially chalked up to breaking in a new kind of character in a new subgenre; and it doesn’t nearly approach the awkwardness with which the speech in the latest installment comes across.

What’s troubling here is that so many other features of the movie are so good, and this one is so easily fixed with some quick and easy tweaking. Oh well, perhaps this will be addressed in the inevitable sequel(s).

What do you think? How did you find the dialog; and the movie in general? Let us know!

My Story Theories

Halloween and Predator 2018: The Revisionist Sequel

Leave a comment

In an era totally inundated with recycled cinema, it’s rare to see something new. Everything is a remake, reboot, adaptation, prequel, spinoff, or sequel. There are some exceptions to be sure, but if you’re looking at the box office headliners, pre-existing property is king.

This creates a host of problems for writers, I would imagine. Introducing a wholly original concept must be like pushing a freight train up a ski slope, getting a job on board one of the established franchises must come packaged with a laundry list of “world rules” that must be obeyed, and the more time-honored and entrenched the mythology is, the harder it must get to color within those lines.

But, with the new installments of both the Halloween and Predator series arriving this year, we have a type of specimen. These are sequels (not soft reboots, hard reboots, or re-imaginings) that effectively cancel out all other sequels in the series and pick up after part one, rerouting the mythological trajectory from that point.

Now we could think of this one of two ways – the cynical tack would be to call it just another excuse to churn out more sequels hoping to recover lost fans after some lackluster installments; or we could be a bit more optimistic and view it as an opportunity to repair a broken and derailed franchise, possibly recapturing some of the magic that made it a successful idea in the first place.

Let’s see what we can put together about these two approaches from the trailers:

Well, this looks awesome to me. Halloween (1978) is credited by many as the original slasher film, establishing a template that would be duplicated for decades to come. The strengths of this film include the dark and mysterious nature of stoic killing machine Michael Myers, the pure heroism of his vigilante psychiatrist Dr. Loomis, and the gritty, suspenseful unfolding of this simple (that theme of simplicity is going to creep up again and again in this post) narrative to an open, yet satisfying, climax.

The rest of the series has had its ups and downs, mostly following the law of diminishing returns, and has never reached the storytelling heights of the first.

If this trailer is any indication, the new movie looks to be a return to form, with some tasteful new elements added. The story seems fairly straightforward. Michael escapes captivity again, after his killer instincts have been jogged by memories of his Halloween massacre forty years ago, and he returns to his hometown to repeat it. Jamie Lee Curtis is back as Laurie, “the one who got away,” and he’s not going to find her the screaming teenager he remembers, but a woman who has prepared and armed herself to the teeth in anticipation of his return. She looks to be hunting him, suggesting that she’ll take over where the late Dr. Loomis left off, as the hero of the piece.

But what’s also interesting is what we don’t see. There don’t seem to be any plot detours to answer questions that nobody asked. Is Michael possessed by the devil? Is he a surrogate under the trance of an evil cult? Is it just an advanced form of psychopathy? It appears, and I hope I’m right, that the filmmakers have given the proper answer to these questions, which is: who cares? Discovering the source and impulse behind Michael’s homicidal drive could only serve to disappoint and suck the unease and mystery out of his actions. Inquiries like this solely serve to complicate the plot, flooding it with mind-numbing exposition, taking the story in directions we don’t want to see it go, and twisting the dramatic question away from what it should be: how do we stop him?

Writers David Gordon Green and Danny McBride(!) have expressed their intentions to get back to the simple charm that made the original an enduring classic, and the first trailer gives us no reason to doubt their word.

Now, on to some not-so-good news…

What in the world is going on here? Remember that magic word I used earlier, simplicity? Yeah, not seeing any of that in this one.

Predator (1987) is a masterclass in the seamless, complimentary fusion of genres. Very few “monsters vs. soldiers” movies manage to come off as anything above the level of farce, but Predator is a cinematic high water mark in numerous ways. The characters are extremely well developed in record time, have fantastic chemistry, and manage to get us on their side despite being tongue-in-cheek and borderline cartoonish. The plotting and structure are top-notch, dialing up the tension and suspense while keeping the creature hidden and mysterious until the end of Act Two, just before the ultimate showdown to decide who is the hunter and who is the prey.

So how about where it went from there? Predator 2 (1990), while an unjustly underrated sequel, drifts a little too far into camp and away from the suspense and subtlety of the first one. Predators (2010) pays a great deal of respect to the original, referencing it nearly every minute, and it has some solid acting and characterization, but it introduces some unnecessary complications to the hunter versus prey survival dynamic, like bizarre blood feuds between multiple Predator species and odd spontaneous alliances between Predators and people. The Alien vs. Predator crossovers are abysmal wastes of great subject matter potential. So, just as with Halloween, there were some highs and lows, but the tone and feel of what made the original so great have never returned.

I’m not so optimistic here because, unlike Halloween, the latest Predator entry doesn’t show any intention to get back to its proven roots. In the total span of two and a half minutes of trailer, we have…

– A kid in the suburbs playing with Predator tech (remote-controlling the ship? surely not). Exactly what I want to see in a Predator movie. The only thing better than suburban kids, is suburban kids that significantly affect the plot by accident. Sci-Fi action monster movies without kiddie shenanigans in them are so boring!

– Interrogations and implied coverups/shadiness by government agents. If this goes on for any longer than one scene, just to get the plot going, it’s going to get old real quick. But I guess a story without stuffy guys in suits saying cryptic things to each other behind a one-way mirror would be so boring!

– Scientists talking about hybridization/Multiple Predator Species again, now including a giant/Upgraded Predator tech Sigh. Why do we need these things? The initial Predator was big, strong, armored, nearly invisible much of the time, and had weapons technology unheard-of on Earth back in 1987. All this new stuff seems to be there in order to pave the way for some flashy, lifeless action set pieces, interlaced with hyper-technical exposition, which is always a lot of fun. Maybe we’ll get really lucky and all this will necessitate some convoluted way that they have to be killed. Because, you know, being resourceful and outsmarting them, as the culmination of an engaging character/story arc would be so boring!

I understand that a sequel necessarily entails expanding the universe to some extent, but it becomes apparent very quickly whether the priority was what would serve the story or what would “look cool.” And I see a lot of “cool” stuff going on here.

Now nothing would make me happier than to have to eat these words later this year, because this movie turned out to be awesome. I love the original Predator, I’m a fan of Shane Black, and I’m totally on board with doing a revisionist sequel to it. But I gotta call it like a I see it. I just hope the full movie is greater than the sum of these trailers’ parts.

Well, there you go. Two noteworthy upcoming revisionist sequels. There’s also one in the works for the Terminator world! What others have you heard about? Were there earlier ones that I missed? What do you think of revisionist sequels? Let us know below!

Software Reivews

Save the Cat! Story Structure Software 3.0 Review

Leave a comment

For the present day screenwriter, the notion of a writing workflow devoid of software has gone the way of, well, the typewriter. Not only is a screenwriting application absolutely vital to proper formatting of the script itself (only a crazy person would type it out on a standard word processor and manually tab, indent, and capitalize to fit industry standards), but there are software suites available for practically every component of the process; outlining, plotting, word-smithing, character profiling, location visualization, you name it. Each of these steps can be ironed out more smoothly and efficiently with the aid of a specialized program as a guide or assistant. Of course one of the most important and challenging bumps in the road from idea to movie is story structure. In this area, many of us can use all the help we can get. It would be great to have a software program to organize, plan, strategize, and map out our structure in a clean and orderly way. Enter Save the Cat! Story Structure Software 3.0.

Let’s get this out of the way first thing. Blake Snyder’s Save the Cat! books are the subject of some controversy in the screenwriting world. Some find STC’s accessible and grounded approach of applying proven story principles derived by reverse engineering some highly successful blockbusters to be extremely useful. Others call it rote, overly-formulaic, and stifling in its rigid “rules” of screenplay construction. Regardless of where you stand on this, the STC Story Structure Software is a truly modular tool that can provide some monumentally time-saving hacks in getting you to your destination, wherever that may be. How rigidly you stick to the method and philosophy detailed in the STC books is entirely up to you. This program is a great boon to anyone, including those who choose to abandon Snyder’s approach altogether.

The only “mandatory steps of the process” are the first few, which involve filling in a title, logline (for which templates are available), genre (which is an interesting classification unique to STC, not your typical genre labels), and approximate page count. These can be quite helpful to start on the right foot, or they can simply be fudged for later modification, and then you’re off to the races…

There is also an outlining, or “beats” area, which many find a helpful starting point. In addition to listing the beats, you can produce, edit, and update catalogs of characters, locations, setups, and payoffs. You can easily toggle between these lists for referencing, rearranging, troubleshooting, or whatever you need to do.

The main thrust of the software is that it serves as a digital means to plot out your script on a set of virtual index cards laid out in the “board area.” This practice was first made famous in Syd Field‘s Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting, and while I agree that there’s no substitute for real, physical cards, their editable electronic counterpart is a welcome supplement. There are a number of valuable features added to the layout here. Each card is an interface that can be marked with various story devices, such as the emotional arc of the scene, setup and payoff bridges between scenes or sequences, and which plot (A,B,C, etc.) is served by the particular card. This all allows some hyper-meticulous plot planning, if that’s your thing.

We all know that the writing process entails “killing our darlings,” or removing anything that doesn’t serve the story, even if we’d rather not do so. For all of those elements that we know we should cut, but see some chance for their resurrection in a different form or maybe a different scene later on, there’s the “Litter Box.” Here you can temporarily discard scene cards, while keeping track of where they came from in the structure. Simply drag and drop them in.

If you can’t wait any more, and those perfectly planned-out scenes are screaming to get out of you, there is a script window, complete with sluglines generated from the scene headings courtesy of the cards on your board, where you can begin to write the screenplay itself, and at any time you can export it to Final Draft and continue there. The downside here is that the formatting, while not completely manual, isn’t quite as automated as in Final Draft or other screenwriting programs. It takes a bit more work on your part to keep it straight (lots of pressing “tab.”) If that works for you, have at it!

Now we come to the window where I’ve admittedly spent most of my time; the general notes section. This is simply a digital free-hand bulletin board where you can place infinite, color-coded, virtual post-its to organize your thoughts, store referential materials, and basically pour your subjective process out onto the interface in whatever fashion you choose. External files in nearly any multimedia format can be attached here, and linked to scene cards in the board to customize a story logic web, attach research data to your outline, or just keep yourself on track with simple self-generated reminders. It also includes a “Greenlight Checklist,” formulated by Snyder in Save the Cat!® Strikes Back: More Trouble for Screenwriters to Get into … and Out of, of factors that he deemed important waypoints in the story. You can refer to it or not, but it’s there!

And there you have it, folks. These are the main features of Save the Cat! Story Structure Software 3.0. Some of the big-picture features include the option to backup and retrieve from the Save the Cat! online storage cloud for use on multiple devices, a special function to send and retrieve it from your iPhone version of the app, and the ability to import from and export to Final Draft.

I have found this program hugely helpful in my writing process, and it’s always open in the background as I’m banging away on my script. It’s what I look to in order to stay on course, and where I log my progress, sticking points, and session agendas. One minor gripe is that it’s not the most intuitive software I’ve ever used, and took some getting used to in terms of usability. But, beyond that point, it’s been a key contributor to my process. Regardless of your method or objectives, I believe it can be the same for you.

Movie Reviews

The Magnificent Seven Review: Who Are These Guys, Anyway?

Leave a comment

(Spoiler-free, until otherwise indicated.)

Well, let’s get this out of the way first; I’m a massive fan of Kurosawa’s original telling of this story in 1954, The Seven Samurai, and I think the first Magnificent Seven in 1960 is a clinical case study of how to modernize, remake, and refashion a great story for an expanded audience by preserving its potency and seamlessly adding some new qualities that make it a triumph in its own right.

In case you’re unfamiliar with this tale (I’ll reserve judgment), it centers on a rag-tag group of skilled but hapless gunfighters who agree to take on a long-shot mission to protect a poor village of defenseless peasants against a vicious criminal and his army of gunmen.

Upon hearing of this remake, I was beyond excited, for some very specific reasons. These days, remakes are spewing out of the studios like so many bodily secretions, but without the same fulfillment of an actual purpose. BUT, I arrived at the IMDB page of this announced production by scouring the upcoming projects of one Nic Pizzolatto, writer of True Detective: Season 1, one of the most incredibly-written, and virtuosically executed works ever produced. (Let’s not talk about Season 2.)

As the months tick by, I find out that the cast will be lead by Denzel Washington, reunited with director Antoine Fuqua and co-star Ethan Hawke from Training Day, along with Korean superstar Byung-hun Lee, Vincent D’Onofrio, Chris Pratt, the list goes on. Well, needless to say, I was over the moon. Let’s run through the inventory of gear this film was packing to make it great: a fantastic writer, a super-cool director, a killer cast, and a proven concept that had already been pulled off to perfection, twice! Was there finally going to be a movie in the theater that would be worth the price of admission?!

Then that first trailer hit…

I knew right away something wasn’t right. I can tell you the exact moment my dreams were shattered. It was Chris Pratt’s line, “God dangit, I’m good!” Ugh. We all know that one line of dialog, that is deemed to be trailer-worthy, can tell you volumes about a movie. This one belongs in such fare as The Expendables, or some other action romp that substitutes cornball quips for genuine character relationships and organic chemistry.

Aside from that, it looked really, really actiony, which… fair enough… it does all boil down to an epic throw-down between seven gunfighters and an army of bad guys. BUT… the flashy acrobatics and intricate choreography is more reminiscent of John Woo in his heyday, or the latest Fast and/ or Furious installment, than any of the greats in its own genre. (During the movie, it really bothered me that, in this world, it seems to be utterly impossible to re-holster a revolver without twirling it first.) These factors in that first peek were enough to shake my excitement. My expectations dropped through the floor.

So, how about what actually counts: the movie?  Well, surprisingly, it’s nearly the best case scenario…

I say ‘nearly,’ because best-case would’ve been that all that stuff in the trailer was entirely misleading and absent from the final film, leaving a rough and gritty Western about the bonds that form between warriors who have reached the limits of their ethical nihilism and unite for a common moral purpose, along with some stuff about redemption and revenge.

While I didn’t get that, I did enjoy it much more than expected, especially after the trailer and a pretty dismal first impression…

It opens with a display of cruelty by the villain against the town of sheepish innocents, that’s so hackneyed, clichéd and nauseatingly predictable, you could almost act it out right along with them.

But things look up after that and it plays out quite as expected. It’s a fun, action-packed ride with many enjoyable and satisfying moments, some low points that are nearly cringe-worthy, and not a lot of depth.

And that brings us to the real problem with the piece. This is where the original(s) truly shined, and what really left me wanting with this one: I didn’t get to know the Magnificent Seven.

This is a group of extraordinary men whose characters are defined by the decision, by each of them, to throw off a carefree frontier life and commit to a suicide mission. Why would they do that? What would change their minds? These questions are the real reason to watch this movie, and they’re mostly glossed-over in short exchanges of a few lines that end with the new recruit uttering “Okay, sure.” I need more than that to care about these guys when the bullets start flying.

Now, balancing this necessary proportion of character development between seven people in a 2-hour (+) movie is no easy task, but, as mentioned, there’s more than sufficient precedent showing it can be done!

(Spoilers ahead)

Of course, all seven guys don’t make it out alive. This type of story necessitates that they don’t. It’s a tale of self-sacrifice for an altruistic cause, or the ultimate test of one’s combative skills, however the individual character sees it. (The fact that we’re not sure which way most of them felt highlights the problem.)

In the original Seven, when the likes of Charles Bronson and James Coburn start getting picked off, I genuinely felt sad, because I’d learned enough about each of to have an emotional stake in their survival.

In this one, even the death of Ethan Hawke, the most fleshed-out among them other than Denzel, did nothing to me. So there was no chance of feeling anything when Vincent D’Onofrio, Chris Pratt, or Byung-hun Lee buy it.

(End of spoilers)

So, there you have it. Worth seeing? Sure. Will it meet the expectations of genre fans? No way. And with everything it had going for it, there’s no excuse for it not being an instant classic.