So, this is the last film in my Thomas Ian Griffith triple feature, and it’s odd that in each successive movie his hair gets shorter and shorter. Also, each of these films have some very impressive names attached to the cast. This time, we’ve got John Lithgow and Donald Sutherland, so, there’s certainly talent on screen worth watching. Hollow Point sees Griffith going pretty crazy with a full charge of charisma in a film I wasn’t expecting to be what it was. Let’s see what it is that it happened to be.
FBI Agent Diane Norwood (Tia Carrere) is ready to do almost anything, even to spoil her own wedding, in order to bring down Livingston (John Lithgow), a major money launderer. In the course of her dogged investigation she runs into the audacious DEA Agent Max Parish (Thomas Ian Griffith) who also wants Livingston. After the two of them reluctantly join forces, they track down Garret Lawton (Donald Sutherland), one of Livingston’s disgruntled hitmen, to help bring him down.
After the conspiracy cop thriller and the Die Hard clone from Griffith, we now get something that tonally veers off in a wild direction. I went into this expecting a fairly serious action movie, but right in the first fifteen minutes, you’ve both Griffith and Sutherland being all kinds of off-the-wall crazy. A Russian Mafioso is smuggled around town, after slipping back into the country, in a casket, and the Max Parish character hijacks his hearse in an effort to interrogate him. In a chase down a stairwell after this, Sutherland’s assassin character Lawton practically cackles and prances around like a nutjob chased by Agent Norwood while Parish rides a window washer’s harness down spouting out jokes. I was laughing my ass off. This is all just plain nuts based solely on Griffith and Sutherland, and this is them just getting warmed up. This is a movie that just knows how to have fun with itself, and I was happy to indulge in it.
Hollow Point ultimately is a buddy cop movie where, absolutely, neither Parish nor Norwood like each other in the least. They are adversarial to the point of sabotaging one another until they reluctantly agree to work together, but even then, they continually butt heads for many reasons. Parish is practically certifiably nuts doing nothing but unorthodox stunts every step of the way, and Norwood feels very dedicated and straight arrow, up to a point. So, it is the classic personality clash dynamic which stirs up friction and entertainment value. Hollow Point is, by very far, no Lethal Weapon, but it’s certainly a whole lot of fun.
As I already touched upon, Thomas Ian Griffith really cuts loose with all of his charisma. Max Parish is ultimately a guy working outside the bounds of the law to his own ends, and so, he’s going for broke at every turn. Thus, he’s greatly unpredictable and spontaneous which facilitates Griffith to throw everything into this performance to make it endlessly fun and exciting. There’s very little opportunity for drama to seep into the Max Parish character as the film really drives for the fun and laughs, but there are a few light, fleeting moments of seriousness that he slips in and out of smoothly.
Yet, as crazy as Griffith is here, Donald Sutherland is full blown whacky. There is not a scene where he isn’t grinning like he’s gotten a snout full of Nitrous Oxide, and just being the nuttiest hitman you’ve ever seen. Sutherland was clearly having an incredibly fun time playing this role with all the eccentricities and flare possible. The flipside of that is John Lithgow doing a fairy straight villain performance, but it’s rather middle of the road. He has lightly humorous moments along with grounded serious ones. After seeing him in both Cliffhanger and Ricochet, I know he can do bad ass bad guy wickedly, but this outing here is nothing special, yet I was glad to have him there. He made the character more interesting and entertaining just by him being in it, and goes the extra mile in the climax.
As you might expect, Tia Carrere is not the most convincing tough federal agent. She certainly plays the role to the best of her ability, and is competent in all the action scenes. However, despite her best efforts, I couldn’t be fully sold on the casting choice. The Diane Norwood role was better suited for someone with more inherent toughness, charisma, and savvy. Sandwiched in between Griffith and Sutherland chewing up scenery with full-tilt vibrancy, Carrere doesn’t really standout at all. She has some decent moments that gain her some credibility, though. Plus, she and Griffith have pretty good chemistry, and she handles the humorous moments sufficiently. I just think there was a stronger casting choice available somewhere for this character, but Carrere’s sex appeal is mildly on display, answering some of the questions of why she was chosen.
The story here is almost unimportant as most of the screentime is really devoted to the buddy cop style antics of Parish, Norwood, and Lawton. Lots of banter, silly moments, and mild scheming to plot against Livingston is all that’s really at play here. Some people want his money for their own gain, and someone else just wants to see him locked up in a jail cell. The movie does not intend to engage you with its story, and rightfully so. Hollow Point is all about its crazy personalities, fun action, and humorous tone.
Even the editing of this movie, with all of its cheesy wipes, goes for the comedy aesthetic, and ultimately, that’s the way you need to take this movie. It doesn’t really push for dramatic storytelling or really intense thrills. It is designed to just have fun with it, and that’s not a surprise from the director of The Taking of Beverly Hills, another B-movie Die Hard clone. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t good action and plenty of explosions. Griffith doesn’t get more than two brief moments of martial arts action as it’s all gunplay and car chases, but the action has some very good production values. The climax really gives you a solid bang for your buck with a lot of fun scenarios, action-packed sequences, and a slightly quirky four-persona standoff. Of the Thomas Ian Griffith movies I’ve now reviewed here with Excessive Force and Crackerjack, this one is the most lively fun, but also, the stupidest of the lot in all the best ways.
Hollow Point just ends up being purely dumb fun that you might enjoy on cable some night. It’s good to have some laughs with and just enjoy the light-hearted action. By no means would this have been a box office success, but it’s perfect direct-to-video entertainment. Since this tightly focused look at Thomas Ian Griffith’s has been about assessing his action star potential, I think the only thing that kept him below the radar and mostly in the direct-to-video world was the quality of the scripts. It would seem like, even with the screenplay he did for Excessive Force, there wasn’t anything strong enough to jump out and grab attention. He also didn’t work with especially talented directors. Van Damme worked with Peter Hyams and John Woo, Steven Seagal worked with Andrew Davis and Dwight Little, Bruce Willis had John McTiernan, Renny Harlin, and Tony Scott, and the list goes on. Griffith got the director of Superman IV: The Quest For Peace and Iron Eagle I, II, & IV. He undoubtedly had every talent needed to be that breakout action movie star with the great martial arts skills, the acting ability to do straight, dimensional drama, charismatic wit, and really light-hearted humor. He had it all, but no one ever paired him up with the right filmmakers to encapsulate all of his potential in one explosive hit. As for Hollow Point, it’s certainly not a good movie, but it entertained me greatly with plenty of laughs. However, I’m eager to get back to reviewing some theatrically released action films.
I don’t know what it is about William Friedkin’s movies that I keep missing what everyone else sees in them. I do keep meaning to watch The French Connection, but for the few films of his I have seen, they have eventually fallen short of expectations. I’ve heard a few people call To Live and Die in L.A. a great movie. One even called it a masterpiece. I have to strongly, heavily disagree with that. This is the second time I’ve seen the movie, and my opinion of it hasn’t changed. Friedkin seemed to be trying to channel a Miami Vice vibe with this movie, but the quality of this would be a rather mediocre episode of that largely excellent series. I will surely give credit that there is good content here and a solid lead performance by William Petersen, but the film left a lot to be desired, especially with its finale.
Federal Secret Service Agent Richard Chance (William Petersen) has a score to settle, and he’s through playing by the rules. Whether that means blackmailing a beautiful parolee, disobeying direct orders, or hurtling the wrong way down a crowded freeway, he vows to take down murderous counterfeiter Rick Masters (Willem Dafoe) by any means necessary. Saddled with a very by-the-book partner in Agent Vukovich (John Pankow), Chance struggles to catch Masters in the act with a risky undercover operation, but as the stakes grow higher, will Chance’s obsession with vengeance ultimately destroy him?
The film’s first major scene has Chance and his longtime partner, Jim Hart, thwart a suicide bomber at a hotel where the President of the United States is giving a speech. This scene is effective in establishing our characters, but surely comes off a little cheesy. It’s slightly reflective of the whole movie. It has good ideas and good talent in it, but never really hits the style and tone just right. Something like this opening scene was done with better results in two scenes from the director’s cut of Lethal Weapon – the sniper incident at the school and the suicide jumper, both of which involving Martin Riggs in a tense, potentially fatal situation. This suicide bomber scene lacks tension and weight to make it feel like a really solid, taut opening scene. It’s far from a bad scene, but it lacked that certain realistic weight to make it feel like anything but a throwaway moment. I did gain a measure of enjoyment from this movie up until the climax, but overall, I do feel that it lacked a hard hitting emotional quality to make the characters and events truly resonate.
I don’t know if this film started the cliché of the cop getting killed two days before retirement, but in retrospect, it seems extremely clichéd. Chance’s partner, portrayed by Michael Greene, goes out to investigate a lead on Masters alone, and gets gunned down while doing so. It does seem stupid that he’d go at it alone because it comes off like a cheap plot convenience. The only hypothesis I could offer is that perhaps he was possibly trying to avoid more of Chance’s dangerous habits, but even still, rarely does a federal agent work a case alone, let alone go poke around the possible hideout of a known violent criminal without back-up. This isn’t the smartest or most creative script, but for a standard action thriller, it is decent enough. Of course, I don’t think that’s the film William Friedkin believed he was making, but I digress, for now.
William Petersen is really what makes the movie particularly good or entertaining. He brings charisma to Richard Chance that has him command scenes, and easily gravitates an audience towards him. He fits the role wonderfully injecting strong doses of excitement and danger into him. You get that edgy, risk taker quality coming out in how Petersen works certain scenes. He’s a tough federal agent both physically and personality wise. When dealing with Ruth, he might use her for sex, but he’s not warm with her. She’s a tool to be used, and he won’t hesitate to have her parole revoked if she doesn’t cooperate. He’s also a man of action that takes matters firmly into his own hands, and runs with them regardless of risk or consequence. He pushes hard for what he believes in, even if it’s a vendetta against Masters. In Petersen’s hands, Richard Chance is a strong, fascinating character that has energy, conviction, and danger engrained into him. It’s a solid, well-rounded performance that enhances what was on the page, and gives it further dimension. There’s nothing I don’t like about this character or performance. It’s excellent.
There are good performances here from the rest of the cast, but the problem is that there is no insight into who they are. We know the surface level stuff, but there’s no perception into the depth of these characters. Willem Dafoe puts in some good work as Rick Masters with a few scenes of solid weight and villainous charisma. There is some attempt at delving into the psychology of the character with him being an artist, and more so, him burning his own paintings. However, the film is too preoccupied with the procedural crime elements to take the time to expand on those ideas to where they have any relevance. I know that Willem Dafoe is capable of such awesome, high quality performances that this one looks very mild by comparison. John Pankow plays his part without flaw, but also without showing anything worth noting. It’s a standard, flat character who has little to offer until the final twenty minutes of the film where he becomes a guilt ridden mess. Everyone does do a good job with the material given, but the material doesn’t have much substance for them to sink their talent into.
I will certainly give credit to that the film is well shot. It’s not stunning, but it is shot competently in all aspects. The occasional use of neon or vibrant color washes is effective and shows a dash of visual style. Aside from one five second shot of some of the worst shaky cam I’ve ever seen, the action is also committed to film solidly. Now, To Live And Die in L.A. does feature an odd style in terms of coverage. This becomes apparent in the latter half of the movie where dialogue scenes hold on a single character for an extended length of time. Usually, such scenes would have a regular rhythm of alternating cuts over the shoulder of each actor, but you’ll come to notice that even when the other actor is speaking, there is no cut to his or her face. It’s not even covered in a in-profile two shot. It stays on that one over-the-shoulder shot of the person who is not regularly talking, and stays there for probably half the scene. I cannot say if this is a good or bad idea without understanding the intention behind it. Oddly, this being pointed out to me is why I gave this film another look. As a filmmaker, I’m always open to new ways of doing things, and adopting new styles if they are compatible with my mentalities. In the end, it’s an interesting way of shooting or at least editing a scene, but I don’t think the film is particularly better or worse for doing this. It’s intriguing is all.
There is also some mixed reaction to offer on the action scenes. The chase through the airport where Chance runs down an accomplice of Masters, portrayed by John Turturro, is great and nicely succinct. It entirely works as a solid jolt of excitement, and I enjoy it thoroughly. No issues there. However, it is the big car chase scene that is the mixed bag. It is surely intense, well shot, and well edited. As the film’s major action sequence, it is quite well executed, to a degree. The entire rest of the film is filled with pop music and an energetic score, but this, its biggest action set piece, features no score of any kind at all. The difference a score makes in this situation is taking the sequence from being just “Oh, that’s dangerous,” to “Damn, that’s exciting!” A score builds up the adrenalin and enhances the imminent peril of the action. It can create that fever pitch of exhilaration that can make or break a scene. The absence of a score here doesn’t kill this scene, but it could have added so much more. Also, you might happen to notice that ALL of the traffic on the highway is going the opposite direction of what it should be. Everyone is driving on the left hand side of the road. Cars in the northbound lanes are travelling southbound and vice versa. I honestly don’t understand why this sequence was staged this way. Like with what I will get into with the film’s final act, it doesn’t make any sense and is ass-backwards.
Since I mentioned the score, I should elaborate on its quality. It’s better in some scenes than others, but generally, it’s just okay. I can’t quite wrap my head around hiring pop band Wang Chung to do the score for this entire film. The band had never done such a thing before, and were really only a mildly popular band. Sometimes these things work amazingly well such as with Tangerine Dream, and I think their scores for Thief and Risky Business are masterful works that capture a unique and brilliant atmosphere. Wang Chung’s score is fairly average with no real ambition or uniqueness to be of special note. Some of the songs in the film even fall on the low end of my quality spectrum. There was such better music of this genre in 1985 that it’s a bit disappointing that this was the best collection of music that could be assembled for this movie. The music just wasn’t memorable in the least to me.
Now, if you do not want spoilers about the film’s ending, skip this entire paragraph and the next. I cannot critique it without being explicit about what happens. I can respect throwing a swerve at the audience in killing your main character unexpectedly, but it has to be earned. There needs to be a thematic storyline running through this that builds up to such an abrupt, anti-climactic moment. Chance is unceremoniously shot in the face as soon as he and Vukovich move to arrest Masters, and it comes off like the most inane idea ever. I believe I can understand part of what Friedkin was attempting to achieve with this event which was entirely improvised on set. Chance is a guy that takes greater and greater risks, pushing things too far for his own obsessive ends. Maybe having him die in a poetic fashion where he does push it one step too far, and pays the price for it would potentially work. Instead, he goes out like a punk, a worthless nobody. The film doesn’t have that dramatic build up to make this work. Yes, he crossed a huge line with his heist from what were actual undercover FBI agents to come up with the front money for Masters, but the film lacks any form of thematic material to have all the reckless behavior culminate in anything. If we saw the obsession eat at him, tear his senses away, and push him beyond the limits to where he invites consequence upon himself, that would potentially make this ending work. The problem is that Chance honestly doesn’t seem much different from any other movie cop that bends the rules and crosses lines where he sees fit. He is a charismatic character, but in the scale of anti-heroes, he’s just above mild. A real great example of what I’m talking about would be in Point Break where the antagonist is an adrenalin junkie who pushes things so far that his friends pay the fatal price for it, and it comes down to one of my favorite endings in movie history that has poetic qualities to it. There’s a price to be paid for what he’s done, but the film handles it in such a perfect way that was setup early on. To Live and Die in L.A. has no setup for the abrupt, shallow murder of Richard Chance.
And it only gets worse from there. What is done with the John Vukovich character is ridiculous, and has no build up, either. After clearly deteriorating into this mess of a man whose conscience is haunting him over the death of the undercover FBI agent they stole from, the ending of the film throws us another swerve. They have Vukovich essentially become Chance. He dresses like him, acts like him, and plans to start using and abusing Ruth just like Chance did. None of this correlates with anything this character was going through at anytime during the rest of the film. It’s thrown in there to be “cool,” but it comes off as near laughable. This is a character that was against everything Chance was doing every step of the way, but kept getting ensnared into it, regardless. This isn’t someone who was going to abandon his by-the-book mentality and troubled conscience. He was more likely to psychologically fall apart and turn in his badge out of guilt. It makes no sense for Vukovich to willingly adopt the mentality of Chance when he was so strongly opposed to it, and after seeing where Chance’s reckless behavior lead him to.
If it wasn’t for this one-two punch of really bad ideas for an ending, I could give this movie a mild recommendation. Something that you could gain some decent enjoyment out of, but nothing to place big expectations for. I honestly feel that if To Live and Die in L.A. was a Michael Mann film, it would have been a thousand times better. If for nothing else, Mann would never in a million years employ the shallow swerves of an ending we got. Considering the following year he made Manhunter starring William Petersen, I think that statement carries a lot of weight. There are episodes of Miami Vice that are masterful works that are better than many feature film crime thrillers, and this film is no exception. As I said, Friedkin tries to channel that vibe and style, but it feels like a second rate imitation that doesn’t capture that emotional substance or sleek cinematic brilliance. He wanted it to be stylish, exciting, and smart, but it’s too lacking on all those fronts to succeed. The main issue with To Live and Die in L.A. is that it thinks it’s a smarter, sharper, edgier film than it really is when it is more or less an average action thriller. There’s barely any depth to the characters, the visuals aren’t anything special, the music is mediocre at best, and the screenplay is more focused on the procedural aspects than the character based ideas it thinks its ending pays off. It’s not a film I hate, aside from the ending, as I had a decent time watching it again, mainly due to Petersen’s performance, but I don’t see the masterpiece of crime cinema that others perceive in it. I’ve seen so much better from Heat to The Usual Suspects to Drive that you really need to work a lot harder to reach such standards.
This film was not what I had hoped it to be. At the time of release, I couldn’t have been more disappointed. However, over time, I have gained some appreciation for it, at least, for what it had the potential to be. I had not watched the television series during the 1980s. I grew up on cartoons, sitcoms, the WWF, and Knight Rider. However, I blind bought the first season of Miami Vice on DVD in 2005, and was immediately hooked. It seemed like good timing with news of the feature film hitting at that time, and the trailer coming a few months later.
What I love about the television show was its way of using popular music as a dramatic storytelling device, and the strong chemistry amongst the cast. The five seasons of Miami Vice redefined what could be achieved on television. Its use of cinematic visuals, gritty crime themes, and action packed, violent stories changed the medium forever. It was slick, colorful, exciting, dramatic, and compelling. Unfortunately, this 2006 feature film lacks all of that.
In this new Miami Vice, roles of James “Sonny” Crockett and Ricardo Tubbs are portrayed by Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx, replacing Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas from the original series. Crockett & Tubbs get pulled away from a local undercover operation to deal with the deterioration of a interagency task force. As Tubbs says, “Your ‘op sec’ (operational security) is blown.” How it links to them is by way of an old informant who got in over his head, and now, pays a dire price. So, to bring down this Colombian crime kingpin, Jesus Montoya, Crockett & Tubbs go deep undercover where they have no back-up, and Crockett gets in close with Isabella (Gong Li), Montoya’s woman.
The real problem of this film is that it lacks chemistry and momentum. The plot moves along very straight forward allowing for no unexpected twists or turns to create exciting plot developments. The first 15-20 minutes of the film (theatrical cut) are wrought with potential for a very exciting, fast-paced feature. Things develop quickly creating urgency for everyone to act quickly, and for a dangerous premise to be setup with agents being gunned down. Action ensues, things blow up while maintaining a hard edged, realistic Michael Mann style. However, it soon slows to a dull pace. The plot moves from one thing to another just establishing elements and relationships and characters, but none of it really means anything. Nothing develops beyond the surface. It’s procedural to a fault. It’s more like watching a documentary of undercover vice cops than an engaging narrative with relatable characters.
In the television series, the clashing personalities of the slick, smooth New Yorker of Ricardo Tubbs and the weathered, cynical Miami Vice cop of Sonny Crockett created a classic chemistry. They didn’t always mesh well, but the chemistry Johnson & Thomas struck was what made the show work. They connected on an emotional level. You saw how these two went from reluctant partners to trusted brothers in arms. You felt it between them, and they played it well. Here, the script keeps the characters in an ‘all business’ mode for so long that you don’t get a moment where it’s just Crockett & Tubbs being themselves. There are little touches that are reflective of the original characters as I know them such as Crockett charming a female bartender at the start, or Tubbs offering his compassionate condolences to interagency commander Fujima, “Sorry about your men.” Regardless of that, you don’t get to know the men personally. It’s all on the surface because that’s what the script demands of them. There is only one such personal scene, but it comes so extremely late in the film, it does nothing to enhance the characters for the audience’s benefit. Also, Lieutenant Martin Castillo, who was one of the most fascinating and textured characters of the original series, portrayed amazingly well by the always fantastic Edward James Olmos, is now just another random character. Simply said, if you changed the names of all these characters, and slapped a different title on the film, you’d never know it was supposed to be Miami Vice.
The attempted romance between Sonny and Isabella just fell flat for me. Part of it is that Gong Li doesn’t speak English very well, and so, she has to spend more time just trying to pronounce the words instead of putting character and emotion behind them. You can see this relationship is having a conflicted effect on Sonny since he’s playing the undercover role of Sonny Burnett, a criminal and smuggler, and has to be close to her without actually being Sonny Crockett. He loves this woman, but as I said, the chemistry isn’t there. I felt no spark between them. No heat. Like so many things in this movie, it just doesn’t click.
The music is also dark and brooding. Aside from a few dance club scenes, the music is not lively. The music itself is not bad at all, I own the soundtrack, but it just further drags down the emotional weight of the film. I know the pop music of today is not like that of the 1980s, but this 2006 movie seems to make every effort to be in stark contrast to everything that defined the name Miami Vice. Thus, why I was so disappointed at the time of release. Michael Mann approached this film with the intention of realism. Make everything feel real, and do nothing that is not comparable to the true operations and people of this world. However, making it too realistic drains out the entertainment value, and the depth to the story being told. Because of this, as I said, the movie comes off more like a documentary.
On a positive note, the cinematography is mostly gorgeous. The shots over the open water as Sonny & Isabella speedboat to Havana are wondrous and sprawling. I live near Chicago, and so, the only large body of water I can enjoy is Lake Michigan. Still, staring out into that endless horizon, to the edge of the world is so perfectly tranquil, and that sense is captured here, exponentially. The film has a large amount of handheld work. A lot of it is handled well, but it can get to be too much. However, it’s nowhere near as bad as Mann’s next film Public Enemies. That was the perfect example of a badly shot movie. Collateral was amazing in every aspect to me, and I embraced the HD digital video look of it. It was shot fantastically. Miami Vice is the downward step between Collateral and Public Enemies in many ways, not just in camera work.
Characters in Michael Mann films went from deep, textured, and complex people to far more stoic people who Mann does not allow to show their depth. While Manhunter is my favorite Mann film, it is The Insider that I feel remains his best film to date. That was the clear definition of character depth, and a well written dramatic film. And Mann did it all without a single action sequence or gunshot. People conflicting with other people on an emotional, psychological, and ideological level. While based on true events, it shows that Mann can bring those qualities out in his films. Where it has gone in the last few years is beyond me.
Miami Vice was marketed as a slick, dangerous, edgy, sexy, and exciting summer action film. That is not the film Michael Mann made, and the film I got was not the one I expected to see on an August midnight showing in 2006. However, after listening to his director’s commentary, and allowing the passage of time, I at least have appreciation for the film it could have been. I understand what Mann was going for, and I love the ideas behind it. I just don’t feel it all successfully came together in this movie. The worst part of the film was the ending. As the movie progressed, I felt there hadn’t yet been a climax. There was a big shootout, but it felt like a precursor to the real climax. Nothing had yet been resolved on a plot development or emotional level. Jesus Montoya was still out there, at large, and I felt like the film would lead into Crockett & Tubbs going after him to shut him down. This was because the same thing happened in the episode “Calderone’s Return.” The villain from the pilot episode escaped, and now, Sonny & Rico had the chance to get him for good. They speedboat to the Bahamas for a final confrontation. None of that happened here. There’s a montage sequence, Crockett walks into the hospital, and the movie cuts to black. Roll credits. There was no resolution to any plot or character elements in the film. The bad guy gets away, he will rebuild his empire, and life goes on. All the Miami Vice squad achieved was killing a bunch of thugs with guns. Expendable, replaceable people in Montoya’s employ. You can pull that off on a television series because there’s always next week, sometimes next season to revisit the storyline, and tie it off at a later time (just like “Calderone’s Return”). In a feature film, you have only 90-120 minutes to establish, develop, and resolve a story. There was no satisfying resolution to Miami Vice 2006. Had there been, maybe I could forgive a lot of the negative marks by there being an exciting ending that actually resolved something that the audience decided to invest their time in.
The worst thing to do going into this movie is to anticipate anything resembling the 1980s television series. Going into it expecting a Michael Mann film might be more suitable, but that doesn’t mean you’ll be pleased. It’s been five years since this film was released, and while I have an appreciation for the ideas behind it, and enjoy much of the cinematography, I don’t view it as that good of a film. The lack of chemistry amongst the cast, momentum within the story, and the grim overall sense just doesn’t allow for much to invest in, unfortunately.