SceneByScene
Joined Jan 2004
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews85
SceneByScene's rating
After all the remakes that Liam Neeson has been making since the first 'Taken' was made (in 2008) -- at last, a film with an original story. And by 'remakes' I don't just mean actual sequels. I also mean that even his brand new films frequently seem to be carbon copies of his other movies!
This film breaks that pattern. No more one man on a mission. No more over-CGI'ing. No more repeats of the same story schematic, and identical plot devices. So many of Neeson's recent films have replicated his other output of the Noughties-plus that I, quite literally, can't tell these movies apart!
'Ice Road' - the predecessor to this sequel - is also a very good film, so that production was a delightful surprise. But this follow-up just seems even more stand-out than the first movie.
It's got a wonderful plot, a great script, fine casting, superb action sequences, and edge-of-seat thrills. And - for once in a modern action film - it is believable that many of these fights etc would have happened, let alone have been survived!
Admittedly there is one definite shortcoming: some of the CGI'd moments - explosions etc - appear somewhat cheaply made i_e_ the results are a bit blurry. But does it really matter? If the special effects do the job so that viewers can see the result, then it has done it's job in telling the plotline of the film.
The rest of the film's features are perfectly on form. The cinematography is great, the scene setting magical, the overall effect of the film is almost visceral. And a film set in the country in Nepal? I don't think think I've ever before seen such a setting or landscape on film. Original idea for a plot location, beautiful, and attention-grabbing for the viewer.
The acting - by largely unknowns-to-me - is marvellous. And Neeson is finally in a new film where both his involvement and the overall product are well presented. The script is excellent: it is never over-laboured, just nuanced to the correct level. We the viewers are not treated as dumb, but as intelligent beings. The backstories of the characters are sufficient but not over-emoted. The movie has just enough of all the elements needed: excitement, friendship, hope, trust, fear, human resilience, and more.
In many ways the film reminds me of the great action-adventure films of the 1990s: Tom Berenger's 'Deadly Pursuit', amongst many others. Let alone the same decade's films that actually feature mountain climbing scenes, e.g. Sly Stallone's 'Cliffhanger', 'Vertical Limit', Tom Cruise's opening scene in 'M. I. 2', etc. Like films of that era, this movie doesn't rely on CGI, nor on unrealistic feats of human strength (BTW I blame such films as the 'Matrix' franchise for pushing viewers to believe - or wish for - this level of strength in humans!). Instead this film of well into the 21st century has a realistic plot, a character-driven basis, warmth, excitement, and believability. An homage to the best of the older generation of adventure movies. An all-round action movie of the best class.
Well done to the team - actors, production, et al. This one's a winner.
This film breaks that pattern. No more one man on a mission. No more over-CGI'ing. No more repeats of the same story schematic, and identical plot devices. So many of Neeson's recent films have replicated his other output of the Noughties-plus that I, quite literally, can't tell these movies apart!
'Ice Road' - the predecessor to this sequel - is also a very good film, so that production was a delightful surprise. But this follow-up just seems even more stand-out than the first movie.
It's got a wonderful plot, a great script, fine casting, superb action sequences, and edge-of-seat thrills. And - for once in a modern action film - it is believable that many of these fights etc would have happened, let alone have been survived!
Admittedly there is one definite shortcoming: some of the CGI'd moments - explosions etc - appear somewhat cheaply made i_e_ the results are a bit blurry. But does it really matter? If the special effects do the job so that viewers can see the result, then it has done it's job in telling the plotline of the film.
The rest of the film's features are perfectly on form. The cinematography is great, the scene setting magical, the overall effect of the film is almost visceral. And a film set in the country in Nepal? I don't think think I've ever before seen such a setting or landscape on film. Original idea for a plot location, beautiful, and attention-grabbing for the viewer.
The acting - by largely unknowns-to-me - is marvellous. And Neeson is finally in a new film where both his involvement and the overall product are well presented. The script is excellent: it is never over-laboured, just nuanced to the correct level. We the viewers are not treated as dumb, but as intelligent beings. The backstories of the characters are sufficient but not over-emoted. The movie has just enough of all the elements needed: excitement, friendship, hope, trust, fear, human resilience, and more.
In many ways the film reminds me of the great action-adventure films of the 1990s: Tom Berenger's 'Deadly Pursuit', amongst many others. Let alone the same decade's films that actually feature mountain climbing scenes, e.g. Sly Stallone's 'Cliffhanger', 'Vertical Limit', Tom Cruise's opening scene in 'M. I. 2', etc. Like films of that era, this movie doesn't rely on CGI, nor on unrealistic feats of human strength (BTW I blame such films as the 'Matrix' franchise for pushing viewers to believe - or wish for - this level of strength in humans!). Instead this film of well into the 21st century has a realistic plot, a character-driven basis, warmth, excitement, and believability. An homage to the best of the older generation of adventure movies. An all-round action movie of the best class.
Well done to the team - actors, production, et al. This one's a winner.
Yet again a film is advertised as being of a movie genre that is grossly incorrect. The online player named this an "edge-of-your-seat political thriller". But I question that description. In fact it's an emotional drama. At times it is gripping - but thrilling, it is not.
Even the still from the film, a photo that is placed on the player's webpage, is misleadingly edgy & energetic. Talk about a film being described to match the webpage's target audience!
Yes, it's a passable movie (good'ish), worth 6-out-of-10 stars at IMDb, but that's not the point. As I had committed 2 hours of an evening to watch what i had thought would be an exciting thriller, having instead to sit through an emotive drama, was palling to say the least.
The online player is well known. I have seen that player offer inaccurate (IMHO!) classifications before. So this is just one time too many. The inaccuracy was time-wasting. Both infuriating, and insulting to the viewer.
As for the film itself: The most deeply felt role was played by the great Alan Alda. His character adds gravitas and style to the movie and to the story. His opinions on the political skance of the Noughties, and the new style of society, add some desperately needed depth to the plot. Rather sad truisms are uttered. His scenes offer some winning moments in an otherwise 'mehhh...' production. As for the lead character, she irritated me from the get-go - she HAD broken the law, so what did she expect?! And when we are shown, at the end of the film, who it was who led her in the first steps of finding out who the CIA employee was . . . I groaned. Yet another frankly 'mum'sy' moment, that was also far too incredulous, and felt foisted on the viewer. So no, producers, I did NOt go 'Ahhhh...!' in sympathy with her and her 'informer'. That a professional political journalist would consider the informer a lead to be protected so far, is hilariously daft. And as for the other players: even lovely Matt Dillon seemed wasted. And a waste is in fact a good description for the overall feel of the movie.
So: two hours of no thrills, and just inadequate dramatic ploys? . . . We shall thus in future be choosing our films by reading a description OTHER than the one on the player's webpage.
Even the still from the film, a photo that is placed on the player's webpage, is misleadingly edgy & energetic. Talk about a film being described to match the webpage's target audience!
Yes, it's a passable movie (good'ish), worth 6-out-of-10 stars at IMDb, but that's not the point. As I had committed 2 hours of an evening to watch what i had thought would be an exciting thriller, having instead to sit through an emotive drama, was palling to say the least.
The online player is well known. I have seen that player offer inaccurate (IMHO!) classifications before. So this is just one time too many. The inaccuracy was time-wasting. Both infuriating, and insulting to the viewer.
As for the film itself: The most deeply felt role was played by the great Alan Alda. His character adds gravitas and style to the movie and to the story. His opinions on the political skance of the Noughties, and the new style of society, add some desperately needed depth to the plot. Rather sad truisms are uttered. His scenes offer some winning moments in an otherwise 'mehhh...' production. As for the lead character, she irritated me from the get-go - she HAD broken the law, so what did she expect?! And when we are shown, at the end of the film, who it was who led her in the first steps of finding out who the CIA employee was . . . I groaned. Yet another frankly 'mum'sy' moment, that was also far too incredulous, and felt foisted on the viewer. So no, producers, I did NOt go 'Ahhhh...!' in sympathy with her and her 'informer'. That a professional political journalist would consider the informer a lead to be protected so far, is hilariously daft. And as for the other players: even lovely Matt Dillon seemed wasted. And a waste is in fact a good description for the overall feel of the movie.
So: two hours of no thrills, and just inadequate dramatic ploys? . . . We shall thus in future be choosing our films by reading a description OTHER than the one on the player's webpage.
At a runtime of 2h 10m, this film is just too long.
There can be a case of too much of a good thing, and this film is it. The whole plot is over-stretched. The gags are run out endlessly, the same theme of joke is used over and over again, and sometimes even the same script ideas are reused. It is as if the studio wanted to squeeze two films into one. (BTW, just a point as a comment on film-making history: I thought such overfilling was a flaw of more modern films. Most of the movies I've seen that were made back in the heyday of Hollywood had a playtime that was an almost de rigeur 1h 40mins('ish). Obviously not in the case of THIS film, then!)
Then the ending of the story is suddenly drawn to a conclusion in 2 minutes rather than the 10 minutes that the plot required. This makes the finale severely truncated, ruining both the development of the characters and the story. It is as if the film-makers had realised they were late for an appointment elsewhere! Ay-yay!
Such a shame, as the casting is good and the roles well acted. The cinematography is on point, as are the other production features of the film. If the studio had cut the film by half an hour the movie would have been pithy, witty, and a great watch. Neater editing would have created a classic Jack Lemmon vehicle of the post-'The Apartment' days: fun and entertaining. And would have left the unused half an hour of jests and japes to be used in another sassy film of the chic 1960s. Something for viewers to look forward to in their next cinema visit . . .
There can be a case of too much of a good thing, and this film is it. The whole plot is over-stretched. The gags are run out endlessly, the same theme of joke is used over and over again, and sometimes even the same script ideas are reused. It is as if the studio wanted to squeeze two films into one. (BTW, just a point as a comment on film-making history: I thought such overfilling was a flaw of more modern films. Most of the movies I've seen that were made back in the heyday of Hollywood had a playtime that was an almost de rigeur 1h 40mins('ish). Obviously not in the case of THIS film, then!)
Then the ending of the story is suddenly drawn to a conclusion in 2 minutes rather than the 10 minutes that the plot required. This makes the finale severely truncated, ruining both the development of the characters and the story. It is as if the film-makers had realised they were late for an appointment elsewhere! Ay-yay!
Such a shame, as the casting is good and the roles well acted. The cinematography is on point, as are the other production features of the film. If the studio had cut the film by half an hour the movie would have been pithy, witty, and a great watch. Neater editing would have created a classic Jack Lemmon vehicle of the post-'The Apartment' days: fun and entertaining. And would have left the unused half an hour of jests and japes to be used in another sassy film of the chic 1960s. Something for viewers to look forward to in their next cinema visit . . .
