This film is an interesting case study. It has a 150 million $+ budget, plenty of star power, and still manages to barely even cause a single thrill in its audience.
Take any metric by which you would like to rate a film. Dialogue? Makes all the mistakes, from exposition to flat references. Comedy? Somehow manages to make Reynolds unfunny. Suspense? Utterly predictable. Plot? Utterly stupid, complete with faux twists and everyone showing up everywhere at the right time (literally).
Every scene left me feeling bored and annoyed. I even felt stupid when the twists were revealed because they were the one thing I didn't see coming, but this was only because they were so asinine they felt slapped on post hoc. Yet even if there had been genuine clues, I would've been far too unengaged to spot them.
Why is this film so mediocre? In part, it is because it's designed as a Hollywood 'tick-all-the-boxes' kind of film. No one took any risks, it was meant to attract people with the star power and barely sit through it. I understand that, but that answer has never satisfied me, because with this budget they must've at least had a writing STAFF, i.e., multiple writers, who received at least one million. How, then, is this the result?
I rate these films harshly, and I think we all should, because just as it isn't hard to score a C when your parents bribed you into college, it isn't hard to make something mediocre on a blockbuster budget. This film is comprised completely out of spam, filler content. Not a single risk was taken; nonetheless, it was rife with mistakes the industry should have learned by now. Compare this with any thrilling low-budget film, any rough gem, and you'll see it for the polished turd that it is.
Take any metric by which you would like to rate a film. Dialogue? Makes all the mistakes, from exposition to flat references. Comedy? Somehow manages to make Reynolds unfunny. Suspense? Utterly predictable. Plot? Utterly stupid, complete with faux twists and everyone showing up everywhere at the right time (literally).
Every scene left me feeling bored and annoyed. I even felt stupid when the twists were revealed because they were the one thing I didn't see coming, but this was only because they were so asinine they felt slapped on post hoc. Yet even if there had been genuine clues, I would've been far too unengaged to spot them.
Why is this film so mediocre? In part, it is because it's designed as a Hollywood 'tick-all-the-boxes' kind of film. No one took any risks, it was meant to attract people with the star power and barely sit through it. I understand that, but that answer has never satisfied me, because with this budget they must've at least had a writing STAFF, i.e., multiple writers, who received at least one million. How, then, is this the result?
I rate these films harshly, and I think we all should, because just as it isn't hard to score a C when your parents bribed you into college, it isn't hard to make something mediocre on a blockbuster budget. This film is comprised completely out of spam, filler content. Not a single risk was taken; nonetheless, it was rife with mistakes the industry should have learned by now. Compare this with any thrilling low-budget film, any rough gem, and you'll see it for the polished turd that it is.