Not to mention that these lay bare the general direction that they story has tried to hide the whole time. And it wouldn't be a problem at all if the story would not be so mainstream (the two's backgrounds and relationships would benefit from some depth) The makers even go as far as adding some true Hollywood style flashbacks which don't fit at all. Anyway, all these niggles don't quite break the suspense but don't exactly help to uphold it either. Or even take care of themselves, for the matter. There's even scene which hints they had to climb down a steep cliff but never have equipment to take the animal with them. The dog just disappears and is re-insertedwhere convenient. For example, some of the basic points of survival stories are not adequately explained - how the duo always have strength to find and carry food, or how they manage to keep the dog alive and healthy who survived the crash too. Sadly, there's not much variety to sloshing in the snow and shivering near the campfires, so it gives one time to begin to notice how the storytelling tends to stay on the lazy / shallow side. The makers don't want to expose the general direction early on, so for most of the time we concentrate on survivors overcoming the harsh conditions. I haven't read the original novel by Charles Martin, but the movie starts as simple but inventive mix of classic story types such as boy meets girl and survival, with even some light but good verbal humor thrown in. A classic boy (Idris Elba) meets girl (Kate Winslet) story, only this time it begins with the plane crashing into mountains, and they have to make their way down without, you know, freezing or starving to death.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |