I see many people here have complained about the hand-held camera and how it gave them a headache trying to follow all the action on screen. I thought they might be exaggerating.
They weren't.
What good is a film, well-made or poorly-made, if it gives you a headache? This is ridiculous. I totally agree with all the reviewers who were annoyed by this. It took away from any enjoyment I was getting from this movie. Consider yourself very lucky if this film doesn't hurt your eyes and head.
However, you still have one other major hurdle: the story! It starts off fine and even 60 percent through, I had no complaints but once the long rescue scene begins, the credibility of this story goes right down the dumper. This is big-time "Rambo" material in which the good guys hit everything they fire at and the opponents are lucky to put a little nick into our "heroes."
In addition, the good guys have their SUV rolled off on a street going hundred miles an hour, flip over many times and all come out running and just fine. Hardly a bruise on any of them, and certainly nothing to slow any of them down. Come on!! Trust me, it gets worse: Jamie Foxx exchanging machine gun fire with foes about 10 feet away and nobody can hit him! You know.....that sort of thing. Thin little Jennifer Garner making like Lara Croft mowing people down left and right. She gets thrown up against a wall at least times and gets kicked in the ribs, but comes up none the worse for wear each time. Are you getting the picture? It's too bad because it good have been a pretty decent picture.
I liked the premise: some Saudi Arabian terrorist committing mass murder with one horrific bombing scene, and the FBI sending over an elite team to work with the Saudis to capture this Bin Laden-type villain. But, well.....it got Hollywood-ized, if you get my drift, and turned out to be something that would insult the intelligence of most adults. It's strong on action and and special-effects but weak on brains and credibility.
They weren't.
What good is a film, well-made or poorly-made, if it gives you a headache? This is ridiculous. I totally agree with all the reviewers who were annoyed by this. It took away from any enjoyment I was getting from this movie. Consider yourself very lucky if this film doesn't hurt your eyes and head.
However, you still have one other major hurdle: the story! It starts off fine and even 60 percent through, I had no complaints but once the long rescue scene begins, the credibility of this story goes right down the dumper. This is big-time "Rambo" material in which the good guys hit everything they fire at and the opponents are lucky to put a little nick into our "heroes."
In addition, the good guys have their SUV rolled off on a street going hundred miles an hour, flip over many times and all come out running and just fine. Hardly a bruise on any of them, and certainly nothing to slow any of them down. Come on!! Trust me, it gets worse: Jamie Foxx exchanging machine gun fire with foes about 10 feet away and nobody can hit him! You know.....that sort of thing. Thin little Jennifer Garner making like Lara Croft mowing people down left and right. She gets thrown up against a wall at least times and gets kicked in the ribs, but comes up none the worse for wear each time. Are you getting the picture? It's too bad because it good have been a pretty decent picture.
I liked the premise: some Saudi Arabian terrorist committing mass murder with one horrific bombing scene, and the FBI sending over an elite team to work with the Saudis to capture this Bin Laden-type villain. But, well.....it got Hollywood-ized, if you get my drift, and turned out to be something that would insult the intelligence of most adults. It's strong on action and and special-effects but weak on brains and credibility.