Rancid: Escolhido para Morrer

It's always worrying when asked about a film and the only thing you can say as a positive is that it had boobs in it. And that's only from the perspective of women-lovers everywhere....

Now, don't get me wrong, this film does have merit. Unfortunately, that is that it had the good sense to rip EVERY idea it had from other, more memorable examples of the crime/thriller genre. Everything you see will be familiar, even if you aren't sure why.

It looks good enough. It sounds good enough. The people are beautiful enough. The stroy is interesting enough. But is it good enough to watch...No.

I saw this film at it's world premier on the Stockholm International Film Festival 2004. It's a Swedish film made in English with (mostly) American actors, funded and produced in Sweden and (despite the New York-setting) mostly shot in Sweden as well. For me this was an incentive in seeing the film as i am always curious when it comes to Swedish film (even though it continually offers mostly disappointments).

The film is about a writer who has trouble with his inspiration ever since his loved one abandoned him for his school-time antagonist. Now there is a class reunion coming up and it seems he has a chance at getting her back, but nothing is what it seems and things soon spiral out of control.

Many times when i review films i think about what is actually worse: hating a film or feeling nothing at all about it. Because movies you loathe still had something that at least made you feel strongly about it one way or the other. Some films just don't have that, you don't really think they are that bad, but they're not really that good either. And Rancid is definitely one of those films.

Technically Rancid is well made. It's about as good looking a Swedish film as i have ever seen. The production values are high at the, in Hollywood terms, quite meager budget of $6 million. Among the cast there is one actor that really stands out. Matthew Settle really does a nice job in the lead and actually manages to lift the film a notch in my eyes.

The story is where i have a problem with this film. It simply doesn't grab a hold of you. I felt uninterested in most of the characters and their problems. Also the story felt rushed and some of the time spent with flowing overhead shots of New York could instead have been spent on making the script more cohesive. More background and more elaborated explanations on why the characters acted the way they did would have helped considerably. The way things happen now you can never really predict anyones actions, which is a bad thing since it makes the characters a lot less believable.

So is this bad? Not really. Is it good? Not really that either. This is simply one of those films that i don't feel very strongly about one way or the other. Watch it if you feel another "innocent-man-accused-of-murder"/cop-thriller is what you need. I rate it 4/10.

I wanted to watch this movie, because I'm European and was anticipating a real avant-guard thriller. No frills, no special effects just some good film making. I was shocked, it was wooden and the camera zoom became just annoying in the end. The acting was light, the character development ? let me say I didn't find it. The plot was so empty, the 'bad' guy never got a chance to rise above his stereotype, the 'good' guy was so weak and the 'twist' so clumsily enacted. Well what can I say, there are no spoilers because the movie spoils itself. A ill managed collage of bad dialogue, weakly acted, strung together with an amateur plot and directed by someone who should better stick to 'home movies'. It cannot get any worse.

If this movie had (a) been better directed and produced, and (b) had half decent acting throughout, it would have been a fairly decent 90 minutes of my life taken up on a Saturday evening. I now wish i'd gone out and spent the £3.95 on a couple of beers down the local pub instead. It tried far too hard to be slick and clever, but fell very badly at every turn. I would steer clear of this at your local DVD rental shop and go for something good! How it got the near 6 out of 10 mark on IMDb, i'm not sure. If you're looking for an entertaining, fast paced thriller with a wicked twist and an awesome story-line, PLEASE don't bother renting this, I was truly disappointed and annoyed that I spent nearly £4 to hire it, and the guy behind the counter didn't think it good customer service to inform me on just how bad it is. If you don't want to take my word for it, that's fine, just let it be known that I did tell you so...

Rancid is an average thriller with a quite good story. There's not anything that's really bad with this movie, rather it's that nothing is quite great. As someone said, you're left with a small feeling of nothing. Now, this can be said of thousands of Hollywood films, too. The reason why they get a higher score is probably because they got a cast that's more mainstream and probably some cool action scene! The performance in Rancid is good. Well-casted and well-acted. Matthew Settle, Fay Masterson, Currie Graham and Patrik Ersgård are all doing a good job. Personally, I think Patrik Ersgårds character and acting lifts the movie a bit. Michael Wiseman and Siena Goines are the weaker links in this chain. The characters are interesting enough.

The dialog is without marks, actually quite good I'd say. The movie is rather fast-paced, compared to most Hollywood-thrillers. The editing is so-so. Music and overall "look and feel" is about average.

There's no reason to choose another thriller over this one. It feels authentic, and maybe that's the downside to it? It's just not enough "Hollywood" to give you that adrenaline. Personally, I prefer Rancid over any action-packed thriller. And that feeling of nothing I mentioned? Well, it's not a feeling of bad, is it? Go see it, rent it or whatever. It's worth it, if only to rest your eyes from all mainstream actors! 7/10