Change Your Image
thegrayrace
Reviews
Inescapable (2012)
Awful!
Other reviews have touched on many of the flaws of this film. My review is specific to complaints regarding realism of this movie.
Having lived in Syria for over 3 years, I was a bit skeptical that this film could pull off any sense of authenticity, and my skepticism was apparently warranted. Aside from the typical pitfalls of movies set in the Middle East (actors that don't really speak comprehensible Arabic, for example), this film is deeply flawed in its portrayal of Syria both from an aesthetic standpoint and a socio-political standpoint.
1. I understand the importance of the plot in bringing to attention the fact that Syria is a police state, but this movie goes way over the top with the Syrian flags and posters and banners of Bashar al-Assad everywhere. Yeah, OK, they're not rare in Damascus... but they are not even remotely as common as this movie suggests. It is cartoonish in its portrayal. Oh, and they forgot the Ba'ath Party flags.
2. The extras in this film almost all look North African, not Syrian. Syrians tend to be much lighter in complexion. Just adds to the inauthentic feel.
3. Far too much traditional North African and Gulf dress than is seen in Damascus, where the vast majority of people dress in Western style clothes.
4. Syrian intelligence (mukhabarat) agents monitor foreigners through hotels. All hotel registries are collected daily, and anyone with a history like the main character supposedly had would have been greeted by intelligence agents promptly the next morning. He'd be monitored in his every action, if not immediately detained.
5. The guy who plays Sayid, the old friend, behaves nothing like any Syrian I've ever met. His mannerisms, gestures, way of speaking, everything... all wrong! Not a believable character at all. While I was watching the film I kept saying to myself, "this guy acts like an Israeli". Sure enough, I check IMDb, and he is Israeli...
6. The Syrian mukhabarat agents portrayed in this film act nothing like they do in real life. I have had more experience dealing with them than I should probably admit, and they act more like lazy bureaucrats than as the gangsters they're portrayed as.
7. Intelligence agents in Damascus did not need guns to intimidate people. They rarely carried them and, if they did, they were generally concealed. They don't point a gun at you and ask for your phone. They just ask for your phone, and you give it to them because you know better.
8. They aren't going ask for the Canadian ambassador's phone, though. And the Canadian ambassador isn't going to be assaulting them, either.
9. In my 3 years living in Damascus, I never saw the pipe bomb souq for the convenient purchase of PVC pipe, nails, and used mobile phones...
10. Why is this girl's body - killed as the result of an ordinary bus accident - stored in some sort of military complex? Syria does have normal morgues... they aren't guarded by military.
Also, there is no desert on the road between Amman and the Syrian border (the desert is south of Amman). And random armed men don't stop cars on that road to take bribes of alcohol, either!
At least there are like 4 clips totaling maybe 10 seconds of actual footage from Damascus. That was at least something redeeming about this movie.
If the writer/director spent any time in the Middle East in the past few decades, she should be embarrassed by her effort here. Honestly, my own experiences in Syria would make a more compelling story than this fiction...
The Walking Dead (2010)
Immense potential, often unrealized...
The main problem with this series is the lack of believability. Anyone with a critical or analytical mind will face unending frustration throughout the duration of nearly every episode. From the bizarre preference for six shot revolvers over fully automatic rifles, to ignoring armored and all-terrain vehicles in favor of cheap sedans, to the insistence of the characters to insert themselves into dangerous situations when there are far safer and more strategic methods of dealing with the scenario at hand... you come away thinking there is no way that these are the people that would survive a zombie apocalypse.
It was a bit easier to overlook these holes in Season 1. The scenes in Atlanta were very well- done, there was a degree of humor in the season which later disappeared, and the show moved at a good pace. There was excitement and a sense of exploration of this new world, not just a constant state of tension. Season 2 was a major disappointment. The entire world has fallen to the undead, yet some little farm house with no notable defenses and seemingly unskilled residents somehow survives basically untouched? The entire season is spent on inter-personal conflicts and seems to serve no purpose but to add a few characters and kill off a few others. It could have been condensed into 4 or 5 episodes. It really felt like the producers were just trying to get by on a tight budget. It really dragged on.
So far, Season 3 has seen a solid improvement. Finally, the group seeks out to do something that logic dictated from the beginning: secure a location that can be fortified and defended. This show keeps me watching because I hold on to the belief that it could be great. The most recent episode, "Clear", is probably the best example of what this series should be: solid writing and character development, a believable scenario and believable actions by the characters. But glimpses of that potential have ended up disappointing me before, so I'm still reluctant to say "watch this series".