Better than taken? In what way? At least taken knew what it was and went for it full steam. This is all over the map genre-wise, with moronic and completely unlikable characters in every way, ASKING you to not care what happens to ANY of them.
The Mortimer character for instance, good god, she has to be one of the dumbest in history. Making bad choices, doing stupid things, over reacting, freaking out at a bad time, etc... She dug her own grave, then we're supposed to care when it's time to pay for it.
It was just going from gag to gag like a bad sex comedy for adults who like thrillers most of the time too. Oh look, she tried to break them on the toilet! Oh look, she almost fell off the train (WTF?!). Oh look, Kingsley almost caught her! Oh look, they want more than the drugs! And so on and so forth for 2 hours.
The first 45 wasn't great character development or anything, let's be real here guys. With stupid enough characters and a silly enough plot, the build up can still be worthless. And there's a big difference between 'inane and worthless dialogue' and 'character development', something the director should learn before his next flick.
I, and everybody I was watching this with, just couldn't believe someone wrote a character like Mortimer's and said 'yeah, this is solid, this is good stuff.' Nobody cared what happened to her, or really anybody else in the flick, and we just couldn't wait for the end... 5/10
"Layered. Like Nachos. Exponential growth yo." - Jesse 'Jackson' Pinkman
reply
share
markfilipak
14 years ago
The first 45 wasn't great character development or anything...
Seriously? You couldn't see "great character development or anything"? I saw wall-to-wall character development that pretty much tipped me off, 1, that there was something bogus about Carlos, 2, that Abby was hiding something, 3, that Jessie was attracted to Abby in ways that Roy probably would have been shocked to learn, and 4, that Roy was a babe in the woods. How much more character development do you need?
Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me.
reply
share
TheBeardedWonder
14 years ago
Kind of answered your own question with your previous assessment of characters. You get all of this within 15 secs of seeing each character. They're right out of the cliche handbook, and stay as such the whole movie. Nobody is developed beyond their initial characteristics.
They don't develop the characters, they throw them at you and then keep them the same the whole movie...
"Look, Hank. Have you ever seen such a beautifully punted baby?" - King of the Hill
reply
share
markfilipak
14 years ago
You get all of this within 15 secs of seeing each character.
Don't turn this into a pissing contest, or did you mean 15 minutes?
Transsiberian isn't a character study but it does establish the characters' flaws quite nicely and then uses those flaws to build a story. In that respect, it's character-driven. Then the story unfolds as a plot-driven thriller. We see how Roy's & Jessie's naiveté leads them into danger. Roy is naiveté and a little arrogant and domineering. We also see how Jessie's fear drives her to extremes. We see Grinko's ominous character unfold throughout. We see Carlos & Abby as first-class manipulators. Granted that Roy & Kolzak are rather static characters but they need to be static to establish the boundaries of excess found in the film - at least, I think that is their purpose. The real psychological action is Jessie v. Grinko and Grinko v. Kolzak and Jessie v. Carlos and even somewhat Abby v. Carlos. I honestly can't see how you can fault the film.
I gave
Transsiberian 7/10. It's not a great film, but it's a good film and quite entertaining.
Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me.
reply
share