I don't really know what I was expecting when I went into this. I usually don't waste my time with direct-to-video garbage, but I was sick and very bored. I'd just watched Snipes' earlier vehicle Unstoppable (2004) which I thought was actually pretty decent, and in no way deserving of all the hate that's been heaped upon it. After seeing the very poor rating of that film, and liking it, I saw this film's lukewarm rating and thought it must be at least ok. I was wrong, and I want my time back.
Let me just say that I usually go into films with expectations. I learn about most movies through this or some other website, so I've usually read about a movie before seeing it, and I pick the ones I want to see. That said, I go into the ones I've picked really wanting to like them, so when they're not good, I'm disappointed, even to the point of being annoyed. Maybe i should change my approach, but this film just didn't meet my expectations.
The plot is wholly generic. A legendary, but retired, government assassin is called in for one last mission, which is to take out a ruthless dictator and terrorist. Once he completes the job, he attempts to leave the country, but is framed for another murder before he can. On the run, he must rely on his skills to survive. Sounds like "Bourne meets any Steven Seagal movie". It's very unoriginal, and it is just a rehashing of every other action movie you've ever seen.
The characters are all bland. I like Wesley Snipes, a lot actually, and I'd even go as far as to call myself a fan. He was the only reason I gave this film a second glance, and the only reason I pressed play. He was alright, even though he didn't have tons of dialogue. He's not as charismatic as he was in the roles of his prime, but he's nowhere near Seagal territory when it comes to wooden acting. He is onscreen a lot, but there's also a lot of time where he's not onscreen. When he is though, he's sitting and/or staring, and occasionally speaking. The other characters are all stock characters recycled from other films. Bleh.
Director Josef Rusnak, obviously an amateur, didn't do horribly. Most of the movie was at least watchable, but he went with shaky, frenetic camera work reminiscent of Tony Scott. Scott's newer, frenetic style, is most notable in Man on Fire (2004), but at least there the style fit the mood. Here, Rusnak's obvious imitation is unnecessary, and just looks clumsy.
Now, I can forgive a generic plot and mediocre characters in this kind of film. It is a brainless B action movie after all, right? I've come for action, and a long as I get at least a fair amount of decent action scenes then I'll be good. Well this so-called "action movie" can't even deliver that. The trailer, which seemed to promise a good amount of action, gravely misled me. There are barely any action scenes, basically like, three or four small ones, in the movie, all of which are incredibly brief (the last one was ok), and poorly edited. Worst of all, Wesley Snipes has one fight scene. ONE FIGHT SCENE. We've come to see Wesley fight and don't get that at all. It seems like Snipes is starting to go the Seagal route of doing fewer and fewer action scenes in his movies, which is sad. Another scene with potential is stupidly obscured by strobe lighting, for no reason. Just why. Several more action scenes, and this would've been better.
The movie asked me to care about its story and characters, and attempted to privilege the story over the action. It's a risky move, one I can respect, but the problem is that it wasn't a great story and the characters weren't great. When there wasn't any action, I was left with the story, which was unsatisfying. The script could've used more action to keep the slow story moving, and at least make it more interesting. Maybe I should re-evaluate it, but my time is too valuable too me.
I wanted so badly to like the movie, but I have to be honest with myself. If you're a Snipes fan, then I guess you could watch it just to say you did. Otherwise, avoid it. It really is a waste of time.
Let me just say that I usually go into films with expectations. I learn about most movies through this or some other website, so I've usually read about a movie before seeing it, and I pick the ones I want to see. That said, I go into the ones I've picked really wanting to like them, so when they're not good, I'm disappointed, even to the point of being annoyed. Maybe i should change my approach, but this film just didn't meet my expectations.
The plot is wholly generic. A legendary, but retired, government assassin is called in for one last mission, which is to take out a ruthless dictator and terrorist. Once he completes the job, he attempts to leave the country, but is framed for another murder before he can. On the run, he must rely on his skills to survive. Sounds like "Bourne meets any Steven Seagal movie". It's very unoriginal, and it is just a rehashing of every other action movie you've ever seen.
The characters are all bland. I like Wesley Snipes, a lot actually, and I'd even go as far as to call myself a fan. He was the only reason I gave this film a second glance, and the only reason I pressed play. He was alright, even though he didn't have tons of dialogue. He's not as charismatic as he was in the roles of his prime, but he's nowhere near Seagal territory when it comes to wooden acting. He is onscreen a lot, but there's also a lot of time where he's not onscreen. When he is though, he's sitting and/or staring, and occasionally speaking. The other characters are all stock characters recycled from other films. Bleh.
Director Josef Rusnak, obviously an amateur, didn't do horribly. Most of the movie was at least watchable, but he went with shaky, frenetic camera work reminiscent of Tony Scott. Scott's newer, frenetic style, is most notable in Man on Fire (2004), but at least there the style fit the mood. Here, Rusnak's obvious imitation is unnecessary, and just looks clumsy.
Now, I can forgive a generic plot and mediocre characters in this kind of film. It is a brainless B action movie after all, right? I've come for action, and a long as I get at least a fair amount of decent action scenes then I'll be good. Well this so-called "action movie" can't even deliver that. The trailer, which seemed to promise a good amount of action, gravely misled me. There are barely any action scenes, basically like, three or four small ones, in the movie, all of which are incredibly brief (the last one was ok), and poorly edited. Worst of all, Wesley Snipes has one fight scene. ONE FIGHT SCENE. We've come to see Wesley fight and don't get that at all. It seems like Snipes is starting to go the Seagal route of doing fewer and fewer action scenes in his movies, which is sad. Another scene with potential is stupidly obscured by strobe lighting, for no reason. Just why. Several more action scenes, and this would've been better.
The movie asked me to care about its story and characters, and attempted to privilege the story over the action. It's a risky move, one I can respect, but the problem is that it wasn't a great story and the characters weren't great. When there wasn't any action, I was left with the story, which was unsatisfying. The script could've used more action to keep the slow story moving, and at least make it more interesting. Maybe I should re-evaluate it, but my time is too valuable too me.
I wanted so badly to like the movie, but I have to be honest with myself. If you're a Snipes fan, then I guess you could watch it just to say you did. Otherwise, avoid it. It really is a waste of time.