Sagsag
Joined Jun 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
Sagsag's rating
If you were hoping for an avant-garde action movie produced by a Frenchman, think again - Richet is no Luc Besson.
The actual action, by itself, is decent at most, and that's the only thing going for this movie.
Actors performances are lackluster, screen writing is sloppy and lazy, suffering from lack of continuity and a formulaic plot, with twists so obvious, I foresaw them literally an hour before they eventually took place.
Characters are superficial and stereotypical, and fail to promote empathy, sympathy, or any other sentiments for them. Decisions and actions made by the characters (both "good guys" and "bad guys") often fail to make any sense.
The actual action, by itself, is decent at most, and that's the only thing going for this movie.
Actors performances are lackluster, screen writing is sloppy and lazy, suffering from lack of continuity and a formulaic plot, with twists so obvious, I foresaw them literally an hour before they eventually took place.
Characters are superficial and stereotypical, and fail to promote empathy, sympathy, or any other sentiments for them. Decisions and actions made by the characters (both "good guys" and "bad guys") often fail to make any sense.
As long as you're willing to put your brain on suspended animation for the duration of the movie, there's plenty of stuff to enjoy in the movie - amazing action scenes and stunts, incredible effects, some humor and corny lines, beautiful women etc.
If you do keep your brain active, you're in for some disappointment. There's your standard run-of-the-mill plot, with the tormented protagonist having to save the world with no government backup. Wow, déjà-vu! Didn't we have that back in MI:1? Oh sorry, got totally confused -- this time it's the *entire* IMF disavowed, not just Ethan. Plus, the plot here is even less sophisticated than the one in MI:1, so I can't really compare the two movies.
Anyhow, your brain would probably end up in suspended mode anyway, as a self protection mechanism, after being exposed to the senseless progression of the plot, the impossible stunts, or the shameless, explicit product placements. Even so, after the whole thing ends, you might find yourself wondering, as your brain regains consciousness: considering all of the futuristic, non-existent (not yet, anyway), technologies seen in the movie, how is it that some very important, existent technologies seemed to be missing (e.g. anti-ballistic missile systems?)
Considering the idea of the original MI TV series, where "impossible" missions were accomplished with wits, elaborate strategies and a couple of believable gadgets; and considering the idea of the MI:2-4 movies, where Tom Cruise and his associates accomplish missions with loads of futuristic gadgets and super-human abilities, I personally find it's really a shame how the two ideas got somewhere mixed up.
If you do keep your brain active, you're in for some disappointment. There's your standard run-of-the-mill plot, with the tormented protagonist having to save the world with no government backup. Wow, déjà-vu! Didn't we have that back in MI:1? Oh sorry, got totally confused -- this time it's the *entire* IMF disavowed, not just Ethan. Plus, the plot here is even less sophisticated than the one in MI:1, so I can't really compare the two movies.
Anyhow, your brain would probably end up in suspended mode anyway, as a self protection mechanism, after being exposed to the senseless progression of the plot, the impossible stunts, or the shameless, explicit product placements. Even so, after the whole thing ends, you might find yourself wondering, as your brain regains consciousness: considering all of the futuristic, non-existent (not yet, anyway), technologies seen in the movie, how is it that some very important, existent technologies seemed to be missing (e.g. anti-ballistic missile systems?)
Considering the idea of the original MI TV series, where "impossible" missions were accomplished with wits, elaborate strategies and a couple of believable gadgets; and considering the idea of the MI:2-4 movies, where Tom Cruise and his associates accomplish missions with loads of futuristic gadgets and super-human abilities, I personally find it's really a shame how the two ideas got somewhere mixed up.
I've decided to watch this flick with my girlfriend due to the rather high rating it had (IMDb 7.6 out of 10).
Both I and her were quite disappointed with the movie. Although only an hour and a half long, I had the impression it was at least 2 hours long, during which I was occasionally thinking when will the point of the movie finally arrive.
When it finally did, I was far from being surprised or shocked, and actually part of the point was pretty obvious to me throughout most of the movie.
To sum up, I consider watching this movie as a waste of time. I find the movie to be quite uninteresting, boring and pointless. I also find this movie to be too long (depite the rather standard runtime). I feel like the same story could have been told in half the time. In contrast, I could easily watch the extended version of "The Return of the King" (almost 4 hours long) without feeling the movie is long.
The only good thing about this movie is Christian Bale's act, which is very good and convincing. It's a pity that he has chosen such a terrible film to act in.
Both I and her were quite disappointed with the movie. Although only an hour and a half long, I had the impression it was at least 2 hours long, during which I was occasionally thinking when will the point of the movie finally arrive.
When it finally did, I was far from being surprised or shocked, and actually part of the point was pretty obvious to me throughout most of the movie.
To sum up, I consider watching this movie as a waste of time. I find the movie to be quite uninteresting, boring and pointless. I also find this movie to be too long (depite the rather standard runtime). I feel like the same story could have been told in half the time. In contrast, I could easily watch the extended version of "The Return of the King" (almost 4 hours long) without feeling the movie is long.
The only good thing about this movie is Christian Bale's act, which is very good and convincing. It's a pity that he has chosen such a terrible film to act in.
Recently taken polls
2 total polls taken
