The very idea of transposing a story so obviously set in a machismo banana republic to America is idiocy on a level all its own.
But apart from that, I'm having trouble deciding which was more painful here: The amateurish writing, the cheap iPhone look of the digital photography, the incompetent editing, the dead-voiced rendition of Amazing Grace over the end credits, or the knowledge that Michael Biehn has fallen so far as to produce and headline in dreck like this.
The fact that I managed to sit through this mess should be testament to my tolerance level, as should the fact that I've given the film two stars rather than one, just because it has William Forsythe in it. Even he can't do anything with the ridiculous clichés he's given to work with, though.
I'm sure someone will tell me that I should watch the original to see a better version. But I'm not going to. If the second time around is this bad with the same director at the helm, how good can the first one be?
But apart from that, I'm having trouble deciding which was more painful here: The amateurish writing, the cheap iPhone look of the digital photography, the incompetent editing, the dead-voiced rendition of Amazing Grace over the end credits, or the knowledge that Michael Biehn has fallen so far as to produce and headline in dreck like this.
The fact that I managed to sit through this mess should be testament to my tolerance level, as should the fact that I've given the film two stars rather than one, just because it has William Forsythe in it. Even he can't do anything with the ridiculous clichés he's given to work with, though.
I'm sure someone will tell me that I should watch the original to see a better version. But I'm not going to. If the second time around is this bad with the same director at the helm, how good can the first one be?