Rogue Elements: A Ryan Drake Story

Rarely has a crowdfunded project more comprehensively dunked on the mugs who gave it money. But Rouge Elephants goes all-out to subvert expectations by displaying all of the very same tropes that its creator mercilessly mocks when he observes them in others:

An anodyne, anonymous John Guyman lead with no character or presence. I've watched this twice and still couldn't name one trait of Nothing Dork.

Pacing that opens with a mild bang then immediately slips into flashbacks, tell-don't-show, and even as-you-know exposition to pad out the run-time.

Not one but two girlbosses who perform ridiculous feats of combat, when they would be laid flat by the first hand put on them.

Dialogue that's stilted, cheesy, clumsy, interchangeable, repetitive and rambling.

An utterly generic plot that's so genre-compliant that surely it must qualify as parody.

Bear in mint that all this comes from a writer / producer who can recognise all the traits of a great indie production, and yet chooses to use absolutely none of them himself.

It's telling that not one of the creator's circle of content creators has reviewed this short, because there is literally nothing in it to praise, either objectively, or in comparison to any contemporary production like Terminal List or Reacher.

A creator with courage would do a "The Drinker Fixes: Rogue Elements", but we still await that moment of humility and self awareness.

I'm actually a fan of Drinker and wanted to support his movie. I'll be fair in my critique, but I have to say upfront that I think this film was poor and reflects what happens when amateurs bite off more than they can chew on their first production.

Conceptually, the movie misunderstood its audience. It seems tailored as a "web movie spinoff" for fans of the Ryan Drake series, yet being released on Drinker's channel meant its core audience wasn't actually fans of the book series, but rather fans of his critiques on modern Hollywood. While the narrative choices might work for established fans of Ryan Drake, they jar with the broader demographic of Drinker's channel and those who crowdfunded the project. The wiser move would have been making the short a proper on-boarding point for new audiences, actually introducing the characters and the world in a clearer way.

The characters could have been conveyed far more interestingly. Think how Bond, Indiana Jones, or even Gene Hunt are introduced: their unique traits are shown through unique memorable action and unexpected character moments. Ryan Drake, in contrast, was presented in a forgettable way. The actor chosen for the role lacked charisma and that X-factor essential to separate this from generic action movies.

As a short, the movie would have been stronger if it focused on character rather than plot. When I think of the recent Mission: Impossible films, the memorable elements aren't just "doing the thing to get the thing." It's the chemistry between Tom Cruise, Simon Pegg, and the cast, with relatable, raw moments of humanity and occasional comedy that keep us invested even when the action is intense. This short lacked that personality and character-driven engagement, which was half a writing issue and half a casting one.

On the acting front, most performances felt hammy and over-the-top. Acting isn't about stealing the scene - it's about reacting, about being present. Far too often, each actor seemed to be waiting for their turn to start chewing the scenery, rather than playing off each other. More blocking, rehearsal, and perhaps splitting duties between a VFX-focused director for the action and a drama-focused director for the character work would have helped significantly. That said, Andrea Pavlovic was very good and leagues ahead of the rest of the cast.

The action scenes were competently choreographed but ultimately forgettable. They felt generic, as though they could've taken place anywhere. Redrafting these sequences to better incorporate the environment would have made them feel more original and exciting.

Cinematography was solid but lacked establishing shots, which are essential for setting mood, tone, and spatial awareness. The audience needs wide shots to ground them in the scene before cutting into close-ups. Don't underestimate how atmospheric sound such as distant guard shouts, howling wind, or the creak of a prison gate-can transform a location from generic to immersive.

Which brings me to the weakest and most amateur aspect of the production, without question, the music. The score felt overbearing and cheap, dominating scenes where silence or subtle sound design could have been far more effective. The deathly echo of an empty prison, the sound of ragged breathing, the creaking of rope - these details can elevate a limited budget far better than drowning the entire soundscape in generic music.

All in all, this wasn't the worst short film ever made, but the premise had potential that was undercut by amateur mistakes, and core talent working with a budget far too big for their experience level. The script needed a redraft to better serve new audiences, and the direction was very weak. It's probably a valuable learning experience for Drinker as an executive producer: you can't just rely on a producer to make things cinematic. You need the right producer and the right director - someone who can demonstrate the knowledge and contacts to elevate the production properly.

Lastly, the opening logo was terrible and set a cheap, straight-to-DVD tone from the outset. It was 17 seconds long with clunky, amateurish animation all in a single unbroken static shot. The concept was nice, but next time, invest around £1500 to hire a skilled 3D artist who can create a cinematic photorealistic sequence with sweeping camera movement and a big budget cinematic flare. First impressions matter. Oh - and keep it under 12 seconds. I'm here for the movie, not a showcase of the producers ego.

Anyway, that's all I've got for today. Go away now!

I like the critical drinker and enjoy his reviews but this movie just goes to show that it's much easier to review movies than it is to create them.

The movie was very amateurish, not just due to the budget. The writing, acting, sound. All of it was like a student film and a bad one at that. Talented film makers can hide the budget but when I came here and saw the budget for this film I was actually surprised they had so much.

The worst part of this film though is that it is just incredibly boring. Everything you see you've seen a million times before (in the 80s) and done much better. I cringed at the dialogue many times, it was cheese on steroids.

There are plenty of short films on YouTube that are far more interesting and unique and fun. It might have been a better ideato have condensed it all into a ten minute short. I don't think this would have made the movie better but at least fans of critical drinker who are curious to see this wouldn't waste as much of their time on this Earth watching this.

Anyway, if you can't do - teach. If you can't make movies - review them.

I was originally planning on giving this 4 stars but that was when I thought they were working with a miniscule budget of about 20k tops. After seeing how much was spent I've knocked it down to 2 stars and that's being generous. If you're a fan of critical drinker I'd recommend avoiding this movie because it is going to be hard to watch his reviews and take his opinion seriously moving forward after seeing what he personally produces.

Disclaimer: I do not like the writer's YouTube channel. I feel that most of their videos are soulless grifter/rage-bait content made simply to cultivate more views. When this debuted, I wanted to give it a fair shake because there was FINALLY something on that channel that didn't capitalize on the bare minimum of its fanbase. Something more to offer viewers other than the "I-dislike-their-views-so-lets-all-bully-them" garbage content.

First off, the proof was funded around 300k-400k, which is pretty impressive for a fundraiser and a small film project. Unfortunately, the presentation still felt amateurish. The cinematography focused on Bourne-level shaky cam during dialogue scenes, a method used to artificially make the moments seem more tense than they actually are. Blocking? Lighting? Color-grading? There are so many technical elements that I find in projects on a $1,000 budget that look infinitely better than this. The performances, while mostly ok, were on par with a lot of Straight-To-VOD action flicks I have come across.

Secondly, the dialogue itself was a string of exposition dumps. Sure, you want to establish stakes, establish the world, and get the audience up to speed. But, if you spend the runtime with characters spouting exposition you only get plot points and cardboard cutouts - there's no semblance of real characterization. Yes, it is only 40 minutes but that's no excuse. I don't think doubling the runtime would have allowed for any characterization, it would have only serviced for more exposition.

Lastly, the fight choreography was absolutely uninteresting. Fast cuts, sometimes indiscernible angles, and at no point was I convinced these were specialized agents/killers actually fighting each other.

In conclusion, this was a proof with zero proof of creative merit. A compilation of action cherrypicked from better movies. As a writer, I think this and the titular book series fail on multiple counts of being a lesser version of many many many that came before.

What stood out most was the overall tone and how cliche it was - I get nothing from this short film that I couldn't experience elsewhere. Slavic antagonists and NATO protagonists, obligatory mindless shootouts and interrogation scene, abandoned compound base, plot armor in the shootouts, etc.

My second biggest gripe would be that I don't know what the hell is really going on, which is a problem severely worsened by the very fast pace. I think the film should have been more accessible to people who aren't familiar with the universe, because I had to spend a substantial amount of time just trying to figure out what was meant to be what.

The world is not portrayed in an immersive or realistic way, which is unengaging. Everything is tailored to serve the plot, rather than to feel like a realistic location that the plot could transpire in. There's a lack of wide shots and slow moments to help you understand the vibes that the characters might be feeling. Instead, it's all just nonestop character-focused action moments or infodumping, without room to breathe.

Smaller details such as the amount of bullets in a magazine, girls having their hair tied back to avoid intrusion, the technical realism of how computers are used, and the amount of injuries sustained in a fight all add up to create a piece of media that just doesn't feel a) realistic and b) technically analyzed by the people who concieved it.

There's also a distinct lack of mystique to the world, and a spy-thriller without mystique is just mindless action in my opinion. Compared to something like John Wick, which builds a lot of mystique both around Wick himself as well as the organisation he worked for, everything in this short film just feels soulless and without deeper intrigue or purpose.

The acting is decidedly unimpressive. Everyone feels almost like they're playing a caricature of the stereotypical roles that they're playing. They all feel superficial, like they have no deeper meaning behind why they act the way they do, and nobody plays off of eachother in a way that appears charismatic or charming at all. I would believe you if you told me every character has their takes filmed in isolation, and were only ever put in the scene together in post. It all just feels very stiff, forced, and unnatural.

There is nothing that particularly stood out about any of the characters in terms of their unique world views or personalities.

Dialogue was flat and boring. It's like that scene in every Christopher Nolan movie where a character tries to explain an overly complicated concept and the majority of the audience just doesn't catch on or care, except in Rogue Elements that scene is 20% of the runtime. I don't care about the specifics of what the characters are trying to do; I care about the characters themselves. What do they value, what do they disagree on, what are their motives. There's just no nuance in this regard, and if they're is then its veiled behind knowledge that isn't conveyed to people who aren't already familiar with the source material.

The only line that stood out to me was when the antagonist replied with "Oh come on, how many 'good men' are dead because of Hastings, because of her?" as it made me actually think about where the morality of each faction was aligned for a moment, as opposed to just mindlessly follow along with "good guys" killing "bad guys". But maybe I only even questioned that because I know nothing about either side and what they're even standing for in the first place.

Lastly, the music is just overbearing, as was the intro sequence. The phrase self-indulgent comes to mind. Use a big crescendo for the climax of an important moment, sure, but I don't need stuff to be blaring 24/7. Let me soak in the atmosphere of the world instead - the sound of gunshots, footsteps and muffled voices, or the silence of a room filled with tension.

My biggest praise for the show would be that the action is visceral and crunchy, despite the fact that all fights are unrealistically one-sided, and the choreography was pretty good too.

I thought the visuals and set designs were nice, and although I thought the colour palette was very bland and uninspired, at least each scene had it's own vibe going on.

For Drinker - I really think you'd earn a huge amount of respect for making a video highlighting what exactly happened in this project, whether it's going to affect your perspective on anything moving forward, and what you've learned fron it. As it stands I think you've lost some sort of credibility as a critic if you're behind the production of something with such glaring amateur mistakes.