Rogue Elements: A Ryan Drake Story

For all the hullabaloo and self congratulatory behaviour surrounded this 'tv concept' thing, it was surprisingly dull affair.

Just a bland, generic special forces mission type thing that helps congest the daytime rota of those strange TV channels that constantly play low budget, low quality tripe.

It makes the Equaliser TV show with that ex rapper look almost like Shakespeare and let's be honest it's not a patch of the original show. I will be surprised if this ever makes it into anything else, be it on TV or the big screen. I believe that there is a series of books with the Nick Drake character, but honestly, I think I could pretty much have a good idea of all the plots going by this.

This Proof of Concept should have been something that showed that Mr Drinker could walk the walk he talks about. Instead, several things he constantly criticized other films for, those some things appear here. Most importantly, it's just boring and not engaging. I at one time considered myself a fan of the drinker , but as of late I stopped watching because all his videos were the same and he spoke about the same thing over and over, and it seems he didn't have the desire to change and talk about some of the more positive stuff, but when he released this idea upon the world , I was excited. I am glad I didn't put money towards this. I know the people who backed this are pissed. It's just like sci fi tv series level of execution.

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.

I'm a big fan of the Drinker as a critic. I could never really get into his writing as much, and this concept piece illustrates why for me.

Don't misunderstand to title, there's some fun to be had with some of the scenes, but the writing did not lend itself well to the direction it received, which resulted in a disconnect with any emotional investment the audience could have.

For all his talk, Will is not quite able to edit his dialogue down to something tight and concise. It's clear that he knows the story he wants to tell, simple and clear. Simple, indeed it is, but the word count that ended up on the paper did not reflect that.