Creed (2015) review

*Holy shit, finally a review. I know, it’s been a while*


By Franz

It’s weird, you hear about a Rocky spin-off featuring Apollo Creed’s son trained by Rocky and it’s not panned as a terrible idea and a terrible movie. Well okay, maybe it was panned as a terrible idea but when it came out, it was actually hailed as one of the years best. Maybe we should have guessed that it wouldn’t be terrible, it wasn’t directed or even written by Stallone and the series had a new creative vision behind it. But, I was, like everybody, highly skeptical, the trailer wasn’t anything special and Michael B. Jordan hasn’t really shown a lot of greatness (yet). But, the film, maybe like the original Rocky, exceeded the expectations and it turned our pretty fucking awesome. So, let’s talk about it.

Southpaw came out earlier this year, the Jake Gyllanhaal boxing movie that everybody forgot, and it was absolute shit. The problem with that film was that it was just so generic, basically ripping off every boxing movie cliche in the book and doing nothing with it’s talent, making it a boring, un-inspired film that felt like any other Hollywood sport film. Creed is basically the original Rocky, almost exactly the same story. But why is Creed better than Southpaw when on paper it sounds like they have the same problems? Well, take the original Rocky for example: even at it’s time, it wasn’t really original, just a standard Hollywood rags-to-riches tale of a boxer with some romance. Why did that work and still does? Because, like Rocky the character himself, it had a shit ton of heart and charisma. Sure, it was basic in terms of story and themes, but the characters were relatable and it was emotional. Southpaw doesn’t hit those emotional tones because the characters aren’t interesting, we know basically nothing about them and the story-telling is just awful (it spends way too much at the start and just skips the whole underdog part), Creed doesn’t do that. Creed has heart, it has innovation and energy, sure it follows a lot of the same beats as the original movie, but it uses them correctly.

The main reason Creed works is because it tells the underdog story correctly. Jake Gyllanhaal’s character in Southpaw is flawed, like Adonis is here, but making him a drug addict isn’t relatable nor interesting. Adonis’ flaw in this film is that he doesn’t want to be treated as the son of a great boxer, he’s wants to be proud without using his fathers name, but since people do treat him like that, it makes him a little violent. Now, that’s relatable because we like to think that we are independent and proud, most of us aren’t rich drug addicts. That’s where Southpaw fails, it makes the main character an asshole and pretty boring, and Creed success, Adonis isn’t perfect but we forgive his flaws more easily. Now sure, Jake LaMotta in The Raging Bull is a terrible human being, but Raging Bull isn’t a sweet rags-to-riches story, like these two films are.

Almost every single performance here is good, Michael B. Jordan is very charismatic and natural, just a fantastic performance, sure he’s cocky but not in an arrogant way. Everybody has been hyping up Stallone’s performance, and yes he is fantastic, but he was pretty fantastic in Rocky Balboa (Rocky 6). I mean okay, Rocky Balboa isn’t a fantastic movie, but it’s surprisingly decent and Stallone delivers an equally emotional performance in that. But yeah, his performance here (especially that one fucking scene) did almost bring out some manly tears. Honestly if I had to bring up one performance that wasn’t great that would be Tessa Thompson, who was pretty good but her character was kinda boring. I get it, she’s this films Adrian, but Adrian was a bit more interesting and fairly un-usual love interest. Bianca is just kinda of bland, but Thompson herself does deliver a sympathetic performance.

The cinematography is mostly good, the montages were all excellent, some funny, some intense, good use of music and great editing, no problems there. Everybody has been talking about that one long take and yeah it’s awesome, even if there was some digital tricks there. It’s a great concept, the first big fight, all in one very long, but energetic, almost Scorsese-like, take and they execute it so well. If nobody had said anything about it, I don’t know would have I noticed it, a good long take is the one you don’t notice, but it was nevertheless amazing.

Like I said, I only have one problem with this film and that’s just it takes a bit too much from the original. Especially from a film that wants to be it’s own, stand-alone film, it borrows one too many. But it doesn’t butcher the first film’s emotional peaks and it delivers the same amount of punch it had. It’s a thrill to watch and I did get goosebumps in the final fight, especially when the music drops there. It’s all a bit too familiar, but it’s all done so well. It’s a 8/10 from me.


Movie review: Planet of the Apes (1968) & Beneath The Planet of the Apes (1970)

*Just some quick thoughts on these two films*

By Franz

Planet of the Apes series is one of the most infamous movie series of all time, parodied a million times and also hailed as one of the most creative sci-fi series ever. Now, I’m a movie buff, but this is my first time seeing any of them, for some reason, I just never seen them. But I got the original series for only 15 euros on DVD and honestly, five films for 15 euros is such a good deal, I would have bought any movie that kind of price.


So, I guess we should start with the first one, the original 1968 PotA with Charlton Heston. It’s considered one of the finest sci-fi films and was a huge hit that has probably parodied more that any other sci-fi film. And I don’t understand why it’s considered a classic. Okay, sure, it’s interesting, the world is very well constructed, there’s some interesting, if somewhat blunt, philosophy and Heston is very charismatic. And while the story is though provoking and fantastical, the script is so blah. The only interesting thing about the story is just the concept, other than that, it’s just screenplay 101, with nothing interesting in it, I knew where it was going all the time and yeah, that may be because everyone has already spoiled everything about this film, but still, the story construction was overly simple. I really hoped that the story would have been told with more creativity and imagination like the concept is.

But there are good things: I love the set design, it really gave a feel that this is a real place and I can understand how it would fool somebody into thinking it’s not Earth. Heston, even though how over-the-top he can be, is a joy to watch and does show his charisma. The ape make up, which is infamous, is fine for the most part, but I have to say it’s pretty dated now, especially when they kiss, they basically just ram their heads into each other like fucking goats. And the ending is quite fantastic, even though everybody will see it coming because of years of parodies. And for years now, I have been quoting Heston’s lines like “You maniacs!” and “Goddamn you all to hell!” and whenever me girlfriend touches my face “Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty APE!”. I’m just kidding. But anyway, it’s a lot of fun to hear those iconic lines in context.

I don’t have a lot to say about this film, the concept is great, Heston is fun and overall it’s pretty entertaining. The script is so basic and un-imaginative and it’s a bit dated. I can’t say it’s a “great film”, but it’s  good film at least. It’s 6/10, maybe a 6.5/10 from me.

Beneath the Planet of the Apes


One of the reasons I wanted to see the original series was because I’ve heard that the sequals were batshit nuts. And during the first half of this one, I was concerned. It was just very poorly made, but it wasn’t crazy enough. But after about forty minutes, I was delighted. This is film is fucking crazy. Like Michelle Bachman crazy. Actually more like Alex Jones crazy: it doesn’t make any goddamn sense, but the ideas are so from the left field, you kinda just want to listen to where it’s going.

Okay, first up: it’s not a good film. I know there are some fans of this film and call it one of the best films in the series, but I have to heavily disagree here. Am I really the only one who thought that the ideas in this film weren’t brilliant, rather childish and just complete mindfucks? I’m going to spoil some shit, so if you haven’t seen this yet, well, go see it. Why do they have masks on if they’re the only ones in there? Why would they feel insecure? If they have magical powers, why don’t use them on the apes? If they are afraid of the apes, why did they hide just a mile away from them? How did the apes even find them? Did they follow Brent’s scent? Was he that smelly? Why did the humans first speak to Brent via telepathy and then randomly switched to normal speaking, wouldn’t it have been a lot easier just to talk? How did they get their clothes? The nuclear holocaust probably happened thousands of years ago, since if it happened recently, the apes (the common apes) would have known about the humans, so how are the current humans disfigured? Do disfigured people have disfigured babies? Is that how evolution works? And how did they make the masks? If the masks are old, how have they stayed so nice looking through the years? If human evolution reached the point of telepathy, how come the normal animal-humans couldn’t even speak? Did the evolution just forgot about them? Why did Heston dissolve into a mountain?

But it was a fun film, 3/10.

If you have answers to my questions, please by all means, post it in the comments.

The Martian (2015)


I know I haven’t been very active lately, I just haven’t had the time to review a lot of stuff. But, finally I’ve made me glorious comeback to film writing. So, what am I going to review? Well I just saw Luis Bunuel’s classic 1961 film Viridiana. And I also saw James Marsh’s Man on Wire, oh and also Werner Herzog’s Nosferatu. But I know most of you don’t care about those films, so I also saw Ridley Scott’s The Martian. So, I guess I should review that one, since it is a new, big budget film.

I was hyped for this, I didn’t read the novel, but I like Scott’s work and the trailer looked really good, like absolutely fucking good. I was so hyped, I actually went to the the theaters to watch this, and I rarely go to the theaters (no time, no money, you know). And to my surprise, it was okay. I want to stress that I haven’t read the novel, so I have no idea how the film differs from it, I’m judging this as a film, not an adaptation. So, let’s start the review:


This film has a lot of characters and a lot of famous actors: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Donald Glover, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels and the list goes on. But really there’s only one main character and that is of course Matt Damon as Mark Watney. His character is a smart, wise-cracking, joe-schmoe-with-a-degree-in-botany and Damon does a decent job. He’s very likeable with his sarcastic remarks and his tough human spirit thing, but I didn’t really think he’s all that special. Sure, he’s a lot of fun, he’s the everyman (kinda) so it’s easy to relate to him, but as somebody who prefers complexity over everyman-status (in most cases), I can’t say that I found the character to be anything more than a popcorn film star. I mean, Damon is very natural in it and he has a lot of charisma so nothing feels awkward at all and Watney is a very sympathetic character, it’s very easy to root for him and his comments are often chuckle-worthy.

dömen, my man

I’m not saying he’s a bad character at all, but we rarely see him anything more than a sarcastic smart-guy. There’s like two scenes, where he’s desperate and thinking he’s going to die, now, you could argue he doesn’t indulge into fears like that because he’s a trained astronaut, but that’s a bit stretching to say, considering NASA probably doesn’t train astronauts to survive alone in a planet. So, I would have hoped to see a bit more desperation, a bit more of him losing his sanity. Most of the problems are solved fairly easily and not a lot of problems even come. I was expecting something awful to happen constantly like in Gravity, but really only one (albeit majot) bad thing happens, which again, is solved pretty quickly. There is a wonderful scene where we do see Watney scared, which is the little moment when he is looking at the MAV (I would give more detail, but I don’t want to spoil it). That was a quite stunning, subtle scene. But, basically right after he goes back to the headquarters, after almost dying and his crew leaving him, almost right after he’s like “I’m not going to die”. Which was strange, I mean, you’ve been there like two hours, you should be thinking “I am going to die here”. But, anyway, Watney’s likeable enough, nothing special, but whatever.

Like I said, this is filled with recognizable faces and most of them are pretty good. Daniels as the douchebag authority is fine I guess, though his character is a bit cheap, he brings some charisma. Donald Glover as the quirky scientist is decent, I liked Glover in Community where he was pretty damn hilarious, but here he’s the standard quirky nerd type which doesn’t really fit him, so at times his delivery is awkward, but overall he was very decent. Kristen Wiig was surprisingly forgetable in this, which is strange, ’cause she’s a very good actress. I don’t even remember what her character was doing in the film. Kate Mara, Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena and the rest of the crew of Hermes are all just cardboard cut-outs, they have no personality other than Pena who is the “bro” for Watney. But the rest are just so basic and boring, I found them the dullest part of the film. Sean Bean was fine, I guess, he looks like he’s about the cry in every scene he’s in, but fine I suppose. Chiwetel Ejiofor (totally had to look how to spell that one from IMDB) is good. He’s very natural in his performance, though his character is average and borderline boring, Ejiofor brings charisma to it.

Basically the only stand out performance was the lead, sadly. Though it’s an impressive cast, I can’t say many of them were very unforgetable. Glover sticks out in my opinion, but probably just because I’m a fan of Community. While nobody was terrible, nobody was really spectacular either, which was a disappointment to me, since I was hoping a lot more from this cast.
Click to page 2 to read the rest

Top 8 Films of 2012

By Franz

Yay, a list! This time it’s my top 8 favorite films of 2012. 2012 was overall a very “meh” year in films, there was a lot of films that I found interesting but lacked a decent script. Like: Flight, Django Unchained, Seven Psychopaths, The Impossible and Lawless, to name a few. None of those films were bad, I just thought the scripts sucked balls. I could do a list of what I thought were the worst of the years, because I would have a lot more material on that (Spoilers, I hated The Impossible), but I’ve decided to be positive today, so let’s look at the eight films that I consider to be the years finest.


Django Unchained


“Hey, you just said that it has a shitty script!”, you’re probably thinking that. Yes, I think Django has a not-great screenplay and Jamie Foxx isn’t very interesting or good in the film, however, not only did this list need fillers, I also really enjoyed this movie. Maybe it’s because I love westerns, maybe it’s because it’s impossible to dislike Christoph Waltz’s accent or maybe it’s the over-the-top cartoonish, yet highly enjoyable violence. Django is not without it’s faults, the script is so loose that at times it’s boring as fuck, it’s like Tarantino’s forgets theres an actual story to be told as well. So, yeah, there’s some Tarantino-jerking-off moments here, but for the most part, it’s very entertaining. The main character is very weak and I can’t see Foxx playing a badass, somehow he just doesn’t fit in my opinion and also his character is just very dull and basic. Waltz on the other hand is absolutely terrific, he’s overly charming and cool, totally reversing his role from Inglorious Basterds and doing it well.

Tarantino’s violence is infamous and this is a violent film as well, but he handles the violence in a lot more comic tone, almost making fun of himself with the bomb-sounds as the bullet hits a body or the massive amount of squids exploding. The mansion shoot-out is one of the most hilariously over-the-top gun battles he’s ever shot. Does he go over the fucking top in it? Absolutely, but I didn’t mind. The score is ridiculous and does not suit that scene at all, but still it’s a badass moment.

Also the cameo by Franco Nero was fucking genius and if you know who he is, you probably smiled like a dumbass at that too. And while there are no “great” moments from the film and it has it’s flaws, it’s still an entertaining movie, one I don’t mind re-visiting. By the way, the greatest scene Tarantino’s has shot and ever will (in my opinion) is the bar scene from Inglorious Basterds with Michael Fassbender and the rest pretending to be Germans. That’s was more Sergio Leone than any scene here. But still, it’s a solid 7.5/10.

Ps. If you are a Tarantino fan, never ask Patrick’s opinion about this film…

Film Review: Amour (2012)


*I know, fucking finally a new review. Sorry boys and girls, I’ve been busy and shit like that, enjoy this review now*

By Franz

I’ve seen only four movies by Michael Haneke, but I must say I’m absolutely loving his work. I adored the ambiguous brilliance in Cache, Funny Games US was an entertaining and thought provoking film about violence and while I didn’t love Benny’s Video, I do respect that film for what it’s trying to say. And his 2012 film about love and the pain of losing someone, Amour, might be my favorite of his. Amour was just about the last 2012 film that I wanted to see, but hadn’t, until recently and somewhat surprisingly, it’s probably my second favorite of the year, behind P.T. Anderson’s The Master. It’s one of the most difficult films I’ve ever seen emotionally and one of the most perfect I’ve seen.

While some complained that the film is “cold”, since Haneke directs it very objectively, rather than trying to emotionally manipulate you into feeling something. The subject matter is sad, heart-breaking and something we can all relate to, either you have experienced what the main character is experiencing or you will. And even if you haven’t, it’s still a powerful emotion. So, Haneke’s objectivity can throw you off, thinking it’s a cold film, but it’s not, it’s simply trying to show something “real”, without wanting to sugar-coat it, showing you the harsh reality. If the film could be described with one word it would be “real” or “humane”, at least in my opinion. If this was an American movie or simply a movie by a lesser director, there would be big, emotional crying scenes and a happy ending of somewhat. But Haneke does almost the exact opposite. For example, when Anne has her first stroke and goes to the hospital, we expect a hospital scene, something right before the surgery or something, but no, Haneke skips that. And almost every “big” moment, Haneke doesn’t show, rather he decides to show their everyday life, showing her decay slowly and the impact of their normal day to day life. And that’s a lot more effective than having a tedious hospital moments. And another thing, Haneke shows them as humans, as real people, they aren’t perfect. We slowly see how the husband starts getting sick of her, you feel his pain as his wife is slowly dying and as each day passes, she isn’t the same person anymore. And of course the ending is something you wouldn’t see in a classic tear-jerker movie. Haneke shows his characters as honestly as he can, as flawed people, which to me makes the film so heart-breaking and humane.

Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanualle Riva are both fantastic, of course both are excellent actors, who worked with some of the greatest directors of all time like Bertolucci and Alain Resnais, they’r one of the main reasons why this film works as well as it does. Of course everybody talks about Riva’s great performance as Anne, and she is heart-breaking and so real and most definitely should have won the Oscar, but Trintignant is great as well, showing how difficult it is to let go and showing so much restraint through out the movie. Riva is amazing as well, the embarrassment and humiliations on her face is so painful to watch at times, she’s just so real in the role and especially the shower scene is one of the most difficult scenes of all time. And those two are pretty much the only people in the film, sure their daughter is in this too, and she’s fine, but she has like three scenes. However the character is still very interesting, wanting to keep her mother alive but knowing how it will end and how soon that will be. She’s frustrated and shows it a lot more than the much more frustrated Georges. But she doesn’t have a lot screentime, so she’s not really worth talking about. So it’s basically just Riva and Trintignant, and Riva doesn’t really talk after the first hour so basically they have to carry the movie and they do it amazingly well.

The film is slow and if you don’t like slower paced movies, you shouldn’t watch this, especially the last ten or so minutes are very slow and even I’ll admit it went on maybe a minute too long. But the pacing didn’t hurt the overall, the slower style suits the film, like Cache, it creates a fantastic atmosphere rather than bore the audience. I guess you could say that about every Haneke film, though my only big complaint about Benny’s Video was that I thought it way too fucking slow, un-bearably slow at times. But Amour, even if the last ten minutes are very quiet and slow, never gets boring, the acting and Haneke precise camera work kept me interested through-out and even if the film doesn’t show “big” moments, the day-to-day stuff is still so heart-breaking. It’s a very quiet film, of course one of Haneke’s trademarks is he doesn’t use music that isn’t “in the story”, only music here is when it’s featured in the film, for example they go to a concert in the beginning and we hear the piano. And that’s effective, somehow the lack of emotional violin music in the film, actually make the film more emotional. Even the camera work is so naturalistic and subtle, Haneke doesn’t waste his time with expensive jerking-off shots or even beautifully lit moments, rather he prefers realistic settings and subtle cinematography. Everything seems so realistic and down-to-earth. Some could argue that Haneke doesn’t have a “style” but I would disgaree. People who say that are probably the people who say Zack Snyder has his own “style” because his films look slightly different, but that doesn’t make you an auteur. Haneke’s style isn’t visual, rather story-telling, always being objective and realistic, leaving the moral questions to the audience to decide for themselves. His visual ques are mostly subtle, every edit and angle are just about perfect and it seems like he knows why to shoot a scene with angle like this or that, rather than just doing a nice angle for the sake of having a nice shot. Every shot and cut seems meaningful and honest. Ps, I’m not ripping on Snyder, he’s fine, not unique in any way, but fine as a director.

If you don’t mind a little slower pace, you’re going to fall in love with Amour (pun intended?), it’s heart-breaking, emotional, humane and most importantly, honest. It’s a tear-jerker, but not your traditional one, it’s shows the pain of the characters very objectively and doesn’t force you into liking these people, but it’s asking you to understand them. They’re flawed people, who are trying to do the best they can, but sometimes they can’t, because of human error. It’s one of the most beautiful films ever made, with some of 21st century’s most realistic performances. If you have a heart, this is going to break you down and probably depress the shit out of you. It’s a masterpiece: 10/10.

Chinatown (1974)

fuck yeah chinatown

By Franz

Spoilers ahead

“What did you do in Chinatown?”, Robert Towne asked one of his police friends. “As little as possible”, he answered as a joke. This stayed in Towne’s mind for a while and then he decided to write a story inspired by that line and his love for the 1940′ and ’50s classic film-noirs. The film was released in 1974 and was a huge success, not only at the box office, but it was nominated for eleven Oscars, only winning one though (Towne for his screenplay), since The Godfather Part 2 came out the same year, so nothing besides that was ever going to win the prices. However, Chinatown was still a success, making Towne a legend in the industry, Jack Nicholson finally became a big star, Polanski got an Oscar nod finally and it practically created a genre (or at least popularized it) neo-noir. It has been copied and parodied almost as much as Godfather Part 2 and Towne’s screenplay is considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all time.

Chinatown is my favorite film, actually it’s tied with Terrence Malick’s debut film Badlands which came out a year before Chinatown did. However if you made me choose, pointing a gun at me, my friends, my loved ones and even my little black bunny (by God that’s a huge gun), I would choose Chinatown as my favorite of all time. It’s the film I can see about a hundred times and still find something new in it and appreciate something I didn’t before. It doesn’t “change” everytime I see it, rather it keeps getting better and better, but it doesn’t change. After probably hundreds of times of watching this, this is still the same movie I saw when I first saw this, but somehow I love every single time a little bit more. I remember thinking how “cool” this was when I first saw this and I still think that, it’s just so, lack of a better word, cool. While I adore Badlands and I could say the same things about that film, Chinatown is more “perfect”. There’s a difference between a flawless and a perfect movie, flawless just means there isn’t a single flaw in the movie but a perfect one means there isn’t any flaws and everything about it is amazing. I would call Badlands almost-perfect, but Chinatown is perfect. And it made me start writing, basically my first stories were just carbon-copies of Chinatown, as sad as that sounds.

Chinatown is about J.J “Jake” Gittes, a private investigator hired to find out if Hollis Mulwray has an affair. After finding out he’s the head of the water and power comity and that he has an affair, Mr. Mulwray is found dead by very questionable circumstances. The film then follows Gittes and the widow Evelyn Mulwray (played by Faye Dunaway) as Gittes’ tries to make sense out of everything.

The story is beautifully complex, with a lot of characters and a very dense story. And I’ll admit, the first time I saw this, I was kinda confused, but it was just so good I didn’t mind. The second time I saw this, I wasn’t confused at all, so maybe the first time I missed like a minute or something and it just happened to be a important part, so I don’t know. But the story is amazing, the little twists and turns it throws to you are surprising and intelligent as fuck. We slowly find out more and more about the mystery but the brilliant part about the film is it’s actually not about who killed Hollis, the real mystery is Evelyn. We’re constantly given more and more information about Evelyn and her past, but by the end we realize we don’t know shit. Evelyn is a complex character, she’s a upper-class lady, looks down on people a lot, she’s clearly hiding something, but Gittes isn’t sure what or is she even. There’s a sense of enigma in her, something that Jake just can’t understand, she’s vulnerable and very protective of herself, almost never telling anything personal. She’s difficult to make her talk, so Jake has to solve the pieces of the puzzle and make her talk. Faye Dunaway is fucking great as Evelyn, not only does she look like a lady in the ’30s, but the subtle things she does make the performance masterful. I love the diner scene, right after the infamous nose-cutting scene, and when Evelyn arrives, the waiter comes to ask what can he bring to her and she says “Tom Collins with lime, not lemon”, but she doesn’t say it to the waiter, she says it to Jake for some reason. I never understood why, is it because she looks down on the “not-upper-class-people”? Or does she want Jake to take care of her or something, I don’t know, but that moment always sticks to me. It’s the little subtleties she makes that make the character as great as it is.

Revolver (2005)


By Franz

Guy Ritchie is the not-so-good British version of Tarantino, but I will admit he has made two films I really liked: Snatch and, of course, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Everybody likes those films, but they’r right, those films are very funny, entertaining and have a fun old-school British crime thriller style mixed with some indie comedy. After Snatch, he made an awful film with his then wife Madonna, called Swept Away. It was shit, but I haven’t seen it fully, because it is shit. But I did see this fucking turd of a film, so I can at least review this. This is the incoherent mess known as Revolver.

I usually do my reviews in three sections (Acting, directing/script/etc and overall), but I’m going to do a different style here, because there is so much wrong about this. I’m just going to talk about the pro’s and cons of the film. But if this is the first film review you’ve read from me, trust me, I usually am not this hack-eyed.

Warning: This review may contain spoilers. If you want to know my opinion about this film without being spoiled, skip to the overall section at the end of this review, at page 3.


The main problem of this film is simply, the script and directing. This is infamous on how ridiculously incoherent it is, how the plot not only makes any sense, but you have no idea what’s going on after the first twenty minutes. My sister saw this and told me to watch it, just so I could tell her what happened. And she’s a very smart woman, so yeah, I was expecting something complex, but it turned out to be just messy. It seems like they had a 300 page script and the film was going to be an epic crime film, at least two and a half hours in length, but it’s like they cut over a half of it out. After thirty minutes, the story starts gathering about a million different sub-plots that doesn’t feature any of the main characters, mainly just Ray Liotta’s hammy gangster and some Japanese dude. You really don’t give a shit about any of that, because they’r not the main characters. Now, this wouldn’t be a problem, a film should focus on more than just one or two characters, but when it focuses on them too much, to the point of seemingly forgetting Statham and the dude from OutKast, something’s not right. Especially when the performances are this poor, why would I care about Liotta when his acting is more scene-chewing than Nicolas Cages and Al Pacino’s cocaine addicted love child.