nathan-53196
Se unió el jul 2023
Te damos la bienvenida a el nuevo perfil
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Guía de ayuda.
Distintivos2
Para obtener información sobre cómo conseguir distintivos, visita página de ayuda sobre distintivos.
Comentarios1
Calificación de nathan-53196
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!
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!