I like Jason Statham, Holt McCallany, and Scott Eastwood as actors. From the buzz of the reviews, I expected to enjoy this. For the first few minutes, my hopes began to be realized...until they weren't.
The story starts of very sure-footedly, with one of several clever filming decisions - the use of a single-angle camera shot. A lot happened off-camera. This was the first of many moments where the viewer knew something big was happening, that he wasn't privy to all of it, and that it would eventually be unfolded. This is a mark of good storytelling. If only it had carried through.
The introduction of Statham's character is also very effective, as one immediately senses there is more to him than meets the eye. But the moment Holt McCallany steps in, all friendliness and helpfulness, I think, "He might be an overcompensating bad guy." It was an amateurish telegraphed move. Casting an unknown, or a little more greyness in his character, would have worked better.
Then a brutal and violent plot unfolds, stepping back and forth in the timeline. It is effective as far as it goes. But the moment they say there's an insider, I think "McCallany or Marsan" (the two known names "inside"; the first the overly helpful character played by a known actor, the second a British actor doing an American accent and being a bit fishy).
I groaned when the evil team turned out to be bitter soldiers, kind of a cheap gimmick. (When, later, one of them sells out his brothers for money, the folly is complete.)
But everything goes entirely south when McCallany decides to explain to Statham that he's the insider, there's going to be a robbery, and "H" (Statham) needs to shut up and cooperate (for no reward) or die. We're to believe he'd do that, with Statham just sitting there within windpipe-chopping distance, sitting by an openable door, with McCallany's character having seen what a fearless and deadly machine Statham is. We're also to believe that Statham would not have noticed that his gun has no bullets.
This is a plausibility crash and burn moment. To me the movie never recovers. Nice-guy McCallany turns into a total monster for the remainder, until his predictable death.
Two final notes. As I said, I like Statham. The camera likes him, gifting him with several extended shots. This movie (and camerawork) provides countless opportunities for Statham to expand his range as an actor. He takes advantage of exactly none of them. Statham maintains the same single grim expression throughout, without the slightest shift or nuance.
So all "H: is is a grim, vengeful, usually-efficient character. You're sorry his son was killed, but you don't care a bit for him. At no point does he show a glimmer of humanity or complexity. Bad directing? Bad acting? Bad, anyway.
More largely, apart from the son (murdered after a couple of minutes' screen time), the movie gives us almost nobody to like or care for, and kills virtually everybody anyway. So it's grim, implausible, and only occasionally fun to watch. The flashes of skill and intelligence are more tantalizing and frustrating than satisfying.
Expected to like it, sorry to be disappointed.
The story starts of very sure-footedly, with one of several clever filming decisions - the use of a single-angle camera shot. A lot happened off-camera. This was the first of many moments where the viewer knew something big was happening, that he wasn't privy to all of it, and that it would eventually be unfolded. This is a mark of good storytelling. If only it had carried through.
The introduction of Statham's character is also very effective, as one immediately senses there is more to him than meets the eye. But the moment Holt McCallany steps in, all friendliness and helpfulness, I think, "He might be an overcompensating bad guy." It was an amateurish telegraphed move. Casting an unknown, or a little more greyness in his character, would have worked better.
Then a brutal and violent plot unfolds, stepping back and forth in the timeline. It is effective as far as it goes. But the moment they say there's an insider, I think "McCallany or Marsan" (the two known names "inside"; the first the overly helpful character played by a known actor, the second a British actor doing an American accent and being a bit fishy).
I groaned when the evil team turned out to be bitter soldiers, kind of a cheap gimmick. (When, later, one of them sells out his brothers for money, the folly is complete.)
But everything goes entirely south when McCallany decides to explain to Statham that he's the insider, there's going to be a robbery, and "H" (Statham) needs to shut up and cooperate (for no reward) or die. We're to believe he'd do that, with Statham just sitting there within windpipe-chopping distance, sitting by an openable door, with McCallany's character having seen what a fearless and deadly machine Statham is. We're also to believe that Statham would not have noticed that his gun has no bullets.
This is a plausibility crash and burn moment. To me the movie never recovers. Nice-guy McCallany turns into a total monster for the remainder, until his predictable death.
Two final notes. As I said, I like Statham. The camera likes him, gifting him with several extended shots. This movie (and camerawork) provides countless opportunities for Statham to expand his range as an actor. He takes advantage of exactly none of them. Statham maintains the same single grim expression throughout, without the slightest shift or nuance.
So all "H: is is a grim, vengeful, usually-efficient character. You're sorry his son was killed, but you don't care a bit for him. At no point does he show a glimmer of humanity or complexity. Bad directing? Bad acting? Bad, anyway.
More largely, apart from the son (murdered after a couple of minutes' screen time), the movie gives us almost nobody to like or care for, and kills virtually everybody anyway. So it's grim, implausible, and only occasionally fun to watch. The flashes of skill and intelligence are more tantalizing and frustrating than satisfying.
Expected to like it, sorry to be disappointed.