Latest
It’s Not X, It’s Y: The AI Tell Shakespeare Wrote FirstWho Gets Rich From AI Data Centers? The Local, National and Global EconomyAre AI Data Centers Bad for the Environment? What’s True and What Isn’tAI Data Centers and Geopolitics: Chips, China, Spies and PowerAI Derangement Syndrome: Who Cares If the Cover Was Made With AI?How to Write a Plot Twist Readers Never See ComingBook Ads Getting Clicks but No Sales? The Problem Is the PageCan Writing a Memoir Make You Sick? The Toll Nobody Warns You AboutWhen Caregiving Ends and the Words Won’t ComeCan You Publish a Clean and a Spicy Version of the Same Book?Do You Need a Writing Buddy? What Works and What Doesn’tCan You Put Someone Who Wronged You in Your Novel?Kindle Unlimited or Wide? Where to Publish Your Debut NovelWriting Vampires: How to Build Your Own Vampire RulesWhat Software Do Novelists Use to Write a Book?What If Your Family Doesn’t Support Your Writing?ARC Reviews: Real Follow-Through Numbers, and Do Reviews Sell Books?The AI Singularity: Would a Conscious AI Even Care About Us?“Forbidden” AI Prompts: Why Viral Prompt Lists Are Mostly JunkAuthor Scam Emails: Fake Agents, Flattery and the $500 PitchWill AI Steal My Book? Turn Off Training Before You UploadThe Fear of Being Judged for Your Memoir: My Father Told Everyone to Burn MineShould You Only Use “Said” in Dialogue Tags? My Rules for Tags and AdverbsWhy a Good Book Isn’t Enough: Agents, Quiet Novels and What SellsShe Asked How to Format Her Comic for KDP. The Thread Went to War Over AI.Why Are Writing Groups So Hostile?My Ghostwriter Stopped Responding. What Do I Do?My Ghostwriter Missed the Deadline. What Are My Options?I Hate My Ghostwriter’s First Draft. Now What?Can I Get a Refund From a Ghostwriter?How Many Revisions Should a Ghostwriter Include?Can My Ghostwriter List My Book in Their Portfolio?My Family Doesn’t Want Me to Publish My Ghostwritten Memoir. Now What?Should a Ghostwriter Write a Free Sample Chapter?How Much Does a Ghostwriter Take Up Front?Can a Ghostwriter Get Me a Book Deal or a Literary Agent?Can I Work With a Ghostwriter Over Zoom or From Another Country?Ghostwriting a Tribute Book, Eulogy or Obituary for Someone You LostCan a Ghostwriter Write My Book in Spanish?Ghostwriting a Book for a Dental or Chiropractic PracticeWhy Keynote Speakers Need a Ghostwritten BookGhostwriting a Science or Research Book for General ReadersGhostwriting a Book for Teachers and EducatorsHiring a Ghostwriter for a Pilot’s or Aviation MemoirHiring a Ghostwriter for a Musician’s MemoirCan a Ghostwriter Help Me Write a Whistleblower Memoir?Hiring a Ghostwriter for an Immigrant’s StoryCan a Ghostwriter Help Me Write About Losing Someone to Suicide?Can a Ghostwriter Help Me Write a Depression or Mental Illness Memoir?Hiring a Ghostwriter for a Special-Needs Parent’s Memoir

Action Films Part 5 – The Solid Craft

Part 5 – The Solid Craft

Series Navigation

Part 1: The Masterpieces |
Part 2: The Near Perfect |
Part 3: The Excellent |
Part 4: The Very Good |
Part 5: The Solid Craft |
Part 6: The Dependable |
Part 7: The Watchable |
Part 8: The Flawed |
Part 9: The Mediocre |
Part 10: The Poor |
Part 11: The Failures

Two remakes in this tier get it right and the reason is the same in both cases. The 2007 3:10 to Yuma keeps the negotiation and adds a road, so the two men have days together instead of hours. The 2016 Magnificent Seven keeps the recruitment, the training, the fortification and the assault, the four things the original was built on.

The other thread here’s legibility. John Wick made action readable again in 2014 by doing nothing more complicated than holding the camera still and letting the shots run, and the industry noticed.

An eight from me means I had a good time and can still point at what went wrong, and most of this page sits right on that line.

The remakes are a disappointment. Yuma and the Seven prove a studio can rebuild an old picture with respect, so when Total Recall and Ghost in the Shell keep the look and toss the idea, I take it personally. Both got eights from me on craft, and craft is all they kept.

Every rating is the one carried by the review it links to. Ties are broken by year, and this is the fifth of eleven parts.

3:10 to Yuma changes one constraint and justifies a remake, and the 2016 Magnificent Seven keeps four structural stages intact. Separate architecture from decoration in the Plot Handbook.

↑ All Entries

1. Man on Fire (2004) [full review]

► Read the full review of Man on Fire (2004)

2004
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.7/10

"The first hour is the reason the second one works."

Tony Scott adapted A. J. Quinnell, moved the story from Italy to Mexico City, and shot it with stuttering frame rates, burned-in subtitles that move around the frame and color that changes inside single scenes. He’d wanted to make it since 1980 and waited more than twenty years for the rights.

The first hour is the reason the second one works. Creasy is a burnt-out former operative who doesn’t want the job, and the film spends real time on a bodyguard and a nine-year-old becoming friends over swimming lessons and homework before anything happens to either of them.

Denzel Washington plays the drinking and the self-disgust without any of the dignity the part invites. The sequence where he attempts to shoot himself and the round fails to fire is played without music, without comment and without any suggestion that it means something. Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke and Radha Mitchell fill out the cast.

Dakota Fanning was nine during the shoot and Washington has said she’s the reason the film works. The film builds the relationship out of small specifics, a swimming start, a piano lesson, a question about whether he’s a bad man, and presents none of it as sentimental. The revenge half is methodical and ugly. Creasy works up a chain, he uses explosives and improvised tools, and the film never presents any of it as satisfying. The exchange at the end is the only decision he makes that the picture treats as a victory.

Washington is the reason this sits at the top of the tier, and the hour he spends earning that girl’s trust is the best-spent hour in any revenge film I can name. My complaint is Scott’s style. The stuttering frames and the subtitles sliding around the screen tire me by the second half, and a story this bare didn’t need that much varnish on it.

For WritersScott spends an hour on swimming lessons and homework before a single act of violence, and every minute of that is the interest the second half spends. Nothing about the revenge works without it. When you plan a story of retribution, count the pages you’ve given the relationship being avenged. Readers don’t care about a loss they were told about. They care about one they watched accumulate, and the ratio is closer to even than most writers allow themselves. Count the pages before the revenge, because you can’t add accumulation retroactively once the reader is already waiting for violence. Writing deaths that matter covers the arithmetic.

↑ All Entries

2. 3:10 to Yuma (2007) [full review]

► Read the full review of 3:10 to Yuma (2007)

2007
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.7/10

"A remake with a genuine reason to exist, and it adds a road."

James Mangold remade Delmer Daves’s 1957 film and made the single change that justifies the exercise.

The original is largely a hotel room and a clock. This version puts the two men on a road for days, so the negotiation has somewhere to go. Halsted Welles wrote the 1957 version from an Elmore Leonard short story.

Christian Bale plays Dan Evans as a man whose problem is money and whose real problem is his son’s opinion of him. He lost a leg at Antietam, he’s being pushed off his land over a debt, and the two hundred dollars matters more than the principle.

Russell Crowe’s Ben Wade is the film’s engine and Crowe builds the performance on offers. He keeps raising the number, he’s charming, he sketches, and every scene with him is somebody being invited to take an easier route. Peter Fonda plays the Pinkerton man and Dallas Roberts the railway representative.

Ben Foster’s Charlie Prince is the reason the last act has weight. His attachment to Wade is the only uncomplicated thing in the film, and the ending turns on Wade’s response to it instead of anything either protagonist does. Marco Beltrami scored it and was nominated for the Academy Award.

The station sequence is the payoff and the film earns it. Mangold shoots the run to the train through a town where every gun is pointed at the wrong man, and the decision that closes it’s made by the character who had least reason to make it.

For WritersMangold changes one structural element and the whole remake justifies its existence. The original confines two men to a room and this version gives them a road, so the negotiation has days instead of hours to develop. When you rework existing material, look for the single constraint you can alter instead of the surface you can update. One that changes how much time the characters have together has changed everything. Look for the single constraint you can alter, since a remake that only changes the period has changed nothing the reader will notice. Plot devices that work covers structural change.

↑ All Entries

3. Taken Trilogy (2008-2014) [full review]

► Read the full review of Taken Trilogy (2008-2014)

2008
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.8/10

"One perfect film and two that demonstrate why it worked."

Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen wrote a ninety-three minute film with no fat anywhere in it, and Pierre Morel shot it for around twenty-five million dollars. It took more than two hundred and made a fifty-six-year-old character actor into an action star. Neeson has said he expected it to go directly to video in most territories.

The telephone speech is the reason everybody remembers it and it works because Bryan Mills is telling the truth. He’s not threatening anybody. He’s describing his own professional capabilities to somebody who doesn’t yet know what he is, and Neeson plays it entirely flat.

Structure is the whole appeal of the first film. A clock starts in the opening act, the protagonist knows exactly what to do, and the picture never stops to let him grieve or doubt. Every scene is either movement or information and nothing else. Olivier Megaton directed both sequels after Morel left the series.

Taken 2 puts the family in Istanbul and asks the audience to accept the same premise twice, the problem every sequel of this kind has. The grenade-and-echo sequence is the one real idea in it and the film uses it well. Famke Janssen plays the ex-wife and Maggie Grace the daughter across all three.

Taken 3 abandons the abduction entirely for a murder frame-up, and the editing is aggressive enough that a fence climb takes roughly fifteen cuts. The series ends by removing the constraint that made the original work. Fox held the American release for close to a year after the European run.

The original Taken is ninety-three minutes of a man doing his job, and I enjoy every one of them.

The sequels are what pull my rating down. Istanbul is the same film with a thinner excuse, and the editing in Taken 3 is a damn mess. Fifteen cuts for a man climbing a fence tells me nobody trusted the shot.

For WritersMills never expresses fear, doubt or grief, and the film is ninety-three minutes long because it never stops for him to do so. His competence is the premise and the picture spends nothing establishing it beyond one phone call. When you have a protagonist whose appeal is capability, resist giving them an interior crisis. Readers came for execution, and a doubt scene inserted for depth stops the engine cold. The sequels prove it by adding exactly that. Establish the capability once and then never revisit it, because a second demonstration is the beginning of a doubt scene.

↑ All Entries

4. Thor (2011) [full review]

► Read the full review of Thor (2011)

2011
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.0/10

"Branagh directing Norse mythology as Shakespeare. The correct instinct."

Kenneth Branagh directed a Marvel film, a proposition that sounded absurd in 2009 and turned out to be the correct instinct. He brought a Shakespearean tone to a story about a father, two sons and a succession, and the Asgard material is played as tragedy instead of fantasy.

Tom Hiddleston auditioned for Thor and was cast as Loki, the single best casting decision Marvel made in its first decade. Hiddleston builds the performance on real grievance, and plays the discovery about Loki’s origin as devastation instead of as motivation. Anthony Hopkins plays Odin across the sequence.

The New Mexico half is the weaker one and the film knows it. Thor’s exile is largely comic, the supporting scientists are underwritten, and the screenplay assembles the romance with Jane Foster from about three scenes and treats them as sufficient. Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz and Don Payne share the screenplay credit.

The Destroyer sequence is where the picture states its argument.

Thor walks toward a weapon that will kill him, unarmed, and asks for his brother’s forgiveness. The film resolves the worthiness question with a man choosing to die for people he met a week earlier. Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings play the scientists.

For WritersBranagh gives Loki a grievance that’s factually correct. He was lied to about his own origin, he was raised as a spare, and the film never argues that he’s wrong about any of it. The villainy comes from what he does with an accurate complaint. When you write an antagonist, consider letting their central objection be true. A villain who is mistaken can be corrected. One who is right about the injury and wrong about the response can’t be argued out of anything. Let the objection be true and the antagonist stops being correctable, the only version of that character out of the position. Why villain motivations fall apart covers the true objection.

Loki’s central complaint is factually correct and the film never argues otherwise. Build an objection that can’t be corrected, using the Antagonist Handbook.

↑ All Entries

5. Sucker Punch (2011) [full review]

► Read the full review of Sucker Punch (2011)

2011
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 6.0/10

"The point of view character is not the protagonist, and the ending destroys the film."

Zack Snyder made the most argued-about film of his career and the argument has never settled. A young woman is committed to an institution in the 1960s and the picture nests three levels of reality inside each other, with the action sequences occurring at the deepest one.

The reading most viewers missed is that the fantasy sequences are dissociation, and the film is explicit that each one corresponds to something happening to Babydoll while she’s not present for it. The theatrical cut removes several scenes that made this clearer.

The visual construction is extraordinary regardless of what anybody thinks of the film. Samurai automatons, a First World War trench with clockwork German soldiers, a dragon under a castle, and a bomb on a train, all photographed with real weight. Emily Browning leads and Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone and Jamie Chung complete the group.

The criticism about its presentation of its own cast is fair and Snyder’s defense has never fully answered it. The film asks an audience to critique a gaze it’s also supplying, and a serious number of viewers concluded that it wanted both. Snyder co-wrote it with Steve Shibuya and it’s his only original screenplay.

I rate this higher than most people do, and the images earn most of that eight on their own. The dissociation reading is real, and I think it’s the smartest idea Snyder ever had. What frustrates me is that he shot it so the surface would sell by itself, and no defense he’s offered since squares that.

For WritersSnyder builds a critique out of the same imagery the critique is aimed at, and a large part of the audience took the surface at face value. Satire that supplies the pleasure it’s condemning can’t control how it’s read. When you write against something using its own vocabulary, understand that you have no way to signal the difference without breaking the effect. Decide before you start whether some readers taking the surface is acceptable, because you’ll have no way to signal the difference afterward. You have to make the decision in the outline, since by the time the first draft exists the ambiguity is already built in.

↑ All Entries

6. Total Recall (2012) [full review]

► Read the full review of Total Recall (2012)

2012
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 6.2/10

"A different film from the 1990 version, not a competing one."

Len Wiseman remade Verhoeven with a considerably larger budget, no Mars, no humor and none of the ambiguity that made the original worth arguing about. Colin Farrell is competent and the film gives him nothing to do with it. Wiseman had made two Underworld films and Live Free or Die Hard before this.

The production design is the one real achievement. A vertically stacked future city shot in permanent rain, magnetic vehicles, and a tunnel through the earth’s core connecting the two remaining habitable regions. Wiseman uses all of it for chases. Kate Beckinsale’s role was expanded considerably from the original picture.

The original’s central question is removed. Verhoeven leaves it open whether Quaid is dreaming, and the 2012 film answers early and moves on, converting a philosophical thriller into a pursuit picture with expensive sets. Bryan Cranston plays Cohaagen and Jessica Biel the resistance fighter. Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback wrote it.

The Fall is the best idea in it and the film never interrogates it. A gravity elevator through the planet, seventeen minutes each way, with a moment of inversion at the center. It’s a fine piece of design attached to nothing. It cost around one hundred and twenty-five million dollars and barely recovered it.

My eight is for the city and the Fall, and I’m a little annoyed at how much I enjoyed a film that threw out the best question in the original. Wiseman had a premise about whether a man can trust his own memory and a budget most directors would kill for, and he spent the whole lot on chases.

For WritersWiseman resolves the is-it-real question in the first act and the film has nowhere to go afterward. Verhoeven left it unanswered and generated thirty years of argument from the same plot. When your story contains an ambiguity worth having, the cost of resolving it’s every reading that dies at that moment. Ask what the story is for before you settle anything, since an unresolved question is frequently the product and answering it leaves an expensive chase. Test it by writing the resolved version out and asking whether the book still has a subject once the question is closed.

↑ All Entries

7. The Wolverine (2013) [full review]

► Read the full review of The Wolverine (2013)

2013
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 6.7/10

"Recovers the character from the 2009 damage, then loses the third act."

James Mangold took the character to Japan and adapted the Chris Claremont and Frank Miller run from 1982, the best Wolverine story anybody has written. The first two acts are the closest the franchise came to a real character study. Christopher McQuarrie wrote an early draft and Mark Bomback and Scott Frank rewrote it.

Removing the healing factor is the structural decision that makes it work. Logan spends most of the film able to be hurt, and the fight on top of a bullet train is tense because a man who can’t be killed suddenly can be. Tao Okamoto plays Mariko and Rila Fukushima plays Yukio.

The funeral sequence and the village material give Hugh Jackman more to do than any other entry in the sequence. He’s suicidal, he’s exhausted, he’s outlived everybody, and the film treats immortality as a burden instead of a power. Darren Aronofsky was attached to direct and left over the shooting schedule.

The last act collapses into a fight with a giant silver robot, exactly the resolution the preceding ninety minutes had been avoiding. The unrated cut improves it and can’t fix the structural problem underneath. Marco Beltrami scored it and the unrated cut runs twelve minutes longer.

For WritersMangold removes the character’s defining ability and the film becomes interesting immediately. A man who can’t be killed has no scenes of real risk available to him, and taking that away restores every one of them. When a character’s power removes tension from your book, the answer is to disable it instead of escalating the threat. Disable the ability instead of escalating the threat, because escalation is an arms race you eventually lose and disability is a structure you maintain. Conflict that drives story covers removing a capability. Disability also has an expiry, so decide in advance how the ability comes back and what it costs to restore.

↑ All Entries

8. Oblivion (2013) [full review]

► Read the full review of Oblivion (2013)

2013
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.0/10

"The production design is the best of its year and the plot cannot support it."

Joseph Kosinski adapted his own unpublished graphic novel and shot most of the film in Iceland, with the sky tower built as a practical set on a mountain in Hawaii using front projection instead of green screen. The light in the film is real. Karl Gajdusek and Michael Arndt share the screenplay credit with Kosinski.

The design is the reason it endures. The bubble ship, the drones, the white tower above the cloud layer, and a domestic interior with a glass pool suspended over nothing. Everything is clean, sparse and deliberately unlived-in. Andrea Riseborough, Olga Kurylenko and Morgan Freeman fill out the cast.

The structure is a slow reveal about what Jack is, and the film plants it properly. The recurring dream, the library, the reaction of the survivors, and a technician who keeps asking whether they’re an effective team. All of it pays. Claudio Miranda shot it the year he won an Academy Award for Life of Pi.

M83’s score is doing an enormous amount of the emotional work and the film would be considerably thinner without it. The picture is more atmosphere than plot, and the soundtrack is the thing holding the atmosphere together across two hours. Kosinski had made Tron: Legacy and went on to Top Gun: Maverick.

For WritersKosinski asks a question in the first scene that nobody in the film treats as a question. Are you an effective team is a status check between colleagues, and it is also the thing the whole picture turns on. Give the plant an entirely ordinary function, since readers sort dialogue by its apparent purpose and a routine question is invisible until it is not. Subtext in fiction covers the hidden plant. The line also has to survive a reread, so write it as something the speaker means at the time. Plant it in a scene doing other business, because a line with no other job in the chapter announces itself on the reread.

↑ All Entries

9. Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014) [full review]

► Read the full review of Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

2014
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.7/10

"A class argument disguised as a spy comedy."

Matthew Vaughn adapted Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons into a film that both celebrates and dismantles the spy picture, and it manages both because it commits to the celebration first. The tailoring, the gadgets and the manners are played entirely straight. Jane Goldman co-wrote it with Vaughn and the two had worked together since Stardust.

The church sequence is the most technically aggressive thing Vaughn has shot. It looks like one continuous take, it’s assembled from several, and it runs roughly four minutes of Colin Firth killing a congregation to Free Bird while the audience is asked to enjoy it and then isn’t permitted to.

Firth was fifty-three and had done no action work at all. He trained for six months, performed the majority of the choreography himself, and the casting is the film’s central joke and its central asset at the same time. Samuel L. Jackson plays Valentine with a lisp and a fear of blood.

The class argument is more serious than the surface suggests. An institution that describes itself as meritocratic rejects Eggsy, the test sequence is rigged in ways nobody acknowledges, and the film states its position on that and then acts on it. Sofia Boutella plays Gazelle and had been a dancer before the production.

The ending is where a considerable part of the audience gets off. The head sequence is played as comedy with fireworks, the final joke is crude and deliberate, and Vaughn has never apologized for either. The sequels progressively lost the balance. It took over four hundred million dollars against a budget around eighty-one.

For WritersVaughn plays the genre conventions completely straight for an hour before undercutting any of them. Vaughn delivers the tailoring, the umbrella and the manners without irony, so the audience is invested before the film turns. A book that signals its own cleverness from page one has nothing to subvert, because the reader was never inside the thing being taken apart. Perform the convention sincerely first, or the reader was never inside the thing you intended to take apart. Sincerity first is also expensive, because you have to write an hour a reader could enjoy without the joke ever arriving.

The Wolverine removes the healing factor and every scene gets its risk back. Disable instead of escalating, using the Conflict and Tension Handbook.

↑ All Entries

10. John Wick (2014) [full review]

► Read the full review of John Wick (2014)

2014
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.4/10

"Legible action, because the camera holds still and the shots run long."

Chad Stahelski and David Leitch were stunt coordinators who had doubled Keanu Reeves on The Matrix, and the film exists because they wanted to prove action could be shot wide and held. Nothing in it is cut to disguise a performer. It cost around twenty million dollars and took more than eighty-five.

The premise is famously minimal. A retired assassin’s dog is killed and the film spends the rest of its length on consequences, with no subplot, no romance and no second objective. Derek Kolstad’s script is about a hundred pages of escalation. Kolstad originally wrote the character as a man in his seventies.

The gun work is the detail specialists point at. Reeves trained for months in a close-quarters shooting discipline and the film shoots his reloads and transitions in frame, so the audience can see a magazine change happen instead of hearing it offscreen. Leitch went uncredited as co-director and later made Atomic Blonde.

The world arrives entirely through props and procedure. Gold coins, a hotel with rules, a cleanup service that arrives with a van and a price list. Nobody stops to explain any of it and the film is stronger for refusing. Willem Dafoe, Ian McShane and Lance Reddick appear across the picture.

Michael Nyqvist plays the crime boss and gets the film’s best scene, a telephone call informing his son what he’s done. The exasperation is real and the performance gives the picture an antagonist who understands the situation completely. Reeves has said he did roughly ninety percent of the fighting himself.

John Wick gave me back something I’d given up on in American action, which is being able to see the fight. After years of shaky cameras and a cut every half second, two stunt coordinators held the shot and trusted the choreography, and I’m grateful to them for it. My reservation is the plot, so thin that by the last stretch the escalation starts to feel like a treadmill.

For WritersStahelski shoots fights in wide frames with long takes, so the choreography has to work. There’s no editing available to hide a missed beat, so the discipline forces competence into the material. When you write action, describe it as though a reader could reconstruct the blocking afterward. Vague, fast prose is the written equivalent of a shaky camera, and it usually means the writer hasn’t worked out what physically happened. Write the blocking before the prose, since language chosen before the choreography exists will always describe something vague. Conflict, Action, and Suspense works the same ground.

↑ All Entries

11. Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) [full review]

► Read the full review of Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

2015
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.3/10

"The ensemble craft holds and the film is carrying too much freight."

Whedon returned and has been open since about how difficult the production was, describing studio pressure over sequences the film was required to contain. The result is a picture with a real idea in it and a great deal of obligation stacked on top. Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson join as the Maximoff twins.

James Spader’s Ultron is the best thing in it and the performance is doing something unusual. He’s petulant, he makes jokes, he’s visibly modeled on Stark, and the film understands that a machine built by a man would inherit that man’s worst qualities.

The farmhouse sequence is the material Whedon fought hardest to keep and it’s the reason the film works at all. Hawkeye has a family nobody knew about, the team stops moving for twenty minutes, and every later decision costs something. Paul Bettany moves from voicing JARVIS to playing the Vision in person.

The Vision’s creation is the film’s strongest single idea and it arrives too late to be developed. A being made from Stark’s assistant, a stone nobody understands and Ultron’s own body, who picks up the hammer and the film doesn’t comment on it. It took over one and a half billion dollars and Whedon left Marvel afterward.

The action is the weakest in the sequence to that point. The Hulkbuster fight is long and weightless, the Sokovia finale is a digital city over a digital sky, and the film has too many characters to give any of them a legible position in either sequence.

For WritersThe farmhouse stops the film for twenty minutes and it’s the reason anything afterward tones. A team that never stops moving gives the reader nothing to fear losing. Readers need a baseline to measure damage against, and the quietest chapter is frequently what makes the loudest one cost anything. Schedule the halt deliberately and put something ordinary in it, because the quietest chapter makes the loudest one cost something. Put the halt where the reader is least expecting a pause, since a scheduled rest before an obvious climax reads as an author catching their breath.

↑ All Entries

12. Doctor Strange (2016) [full review]

► Read the full review of Doctor Strange (2016)

2016
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.5/10

"The visual grammar is new and the arc is compressed."

Scott Derrickson made the most visually inventive Marvel film and the folding-city sequences are the reason. Buildings rotate through each other in a way that’s no equivalent elsewhere in the franchise, and the effects team spent close to two years on the kaleidoscopic material. The origin is the standard arrogant-man-humbled structure and the film moves through it efficiently. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Strange as insufferable before the accident and the humility arrives slowly enough to be credible. Jon Spaihts, C. Robert Cargill and Derrickson share the screenplay credit. Michael Giacchino scored it.

The Ancient One casting was a real failure and Tilda Swinton and the studio have both acknowledged it since. The character is Tibetan in the source material, the studio made the change for market reasons it stated openly, and it diminishes the film. The ending is the best decision in the picture. Strange defeats a cosmic entity by trapping himself in a time loop and dying repeatedly until the entity finds it intolerable. It’s a resolution through persistence instead of force, and almost no film in the genre attempts it.

The time loop ending delighted me, and I can’t think of many superhero finales I’d say that about. Strange wins by being too stubborn to stay dead, and that’s a better idea than any beam of light in the sky. The Ancient One casting is what holds it to an eight for me. It was a bad call made for market reasons, and the film is smaller for it.

For WritersStrange wins by making himself impossible to be rid of. He proposes a bargain to a being that can’t be defeated, using the only thing he has, an unlimited willingness to endure the same death indefinitely. Capability is a contest they lose. The question that fixes stuck plots works this angle. Look for what the protagonist can tolerate instead of what they can do, since endurance is a game the stronger party has no move against. Endurance also has to cost something visible, or the reader treats it as a technicality instead of as a price the character agreed to pay.

↑ All Entries

13. The Magnificent Seven (2016) [full review]

► Read the full review of The Magnificent Seven (2016)

2016
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 6.8/10

"A remake that understands which parts were load-bearing."

Antoine Fuqua remade the 1960 film, itself a remake, and kept the four things the structure is built on. Recruitment, training, fortification and assault, in that order, with each stage given enough time to register. Nic Pizzolatto and Richard Wenk wrote it after True Detective’s first season.

The ensemble is the reason it works and the casting does the characterization. Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, Lee Byung-hun, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo and Martin Sensmeier are each introduced through a demonstration instead of a biography. Haley Bennett plays the widow who hires them and drives the recruitment.

Hawke’s Goodnight Robicheaux is the film’s most interesting element. He’s a celebrated marksman who can no longer bring himself to fire, the film treats it as a real condition instead of cowardice, and his return is earned. Fuqua had worked with Washington on Training Day and The Equalizer.

Peter Sarsgaard’s Bogue is thinner than the structure needs. He’s a mining industrialist with no argument for himself, and the original’s Calvera had a better speech about sheep than anything this version gives its antagonist. It took over one hundred and sixty million dollars worldwide.

I enjoyed every stage of this one, and somebody deserves credit for still believing a big western could work in 2016. Bogue is what keeps it at an eight for me. A villain with no argument turns the last act into target practice, and Calvera’s speech about sheep in the original gave me more to think about than Sarsgaard gets in the whole picture.

James Horner scored it and died before completing the work, having written it without a contract as a gift to Fuqua. Simon Franglen finished it, and the Bernstein theme arrives over the closing credits instead of in the film. Mauro Fiore shot it in Louisiana and Arizona.

For WritersFuqua identifies the four structural stages the original was built on and keeps all of them intact. What he changes is the cast, the setting detail and the antagonist’s business. Most failed adaptations keep the decoration and rebuild the architecture, exactly backward, and it produces something that looks correct and doesn’t function. Separate the architecture from the decoration before you touch either, because keeping the decoration produces something that looks correct and doesn’t function. Name the essential stages in a list before you start, and treat anything not on that list as available to rebuild. Why characters feel flat covers the ensemble.

Man on Fire spends an hour on swimming lessons and The Foreigner removes every trace of Jackie Chan. Two kinds of investment in the Showing and Telling Handbook.

↑ All Entries

14. The Foreigner (2017) [full review]

► Read the full review of The Foreigner (2017)

2017
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.0/10

"Jackie Chan at sixty-three playing grief instead of agility."

Martin Campbell cast Jackie Chan against everything he’d done for forty years, as a London restaurant owner whose daughter is killed by a bomb. There’s no comedy, no prop work and no charm anywhere in the performance. Stephen Leather’s novel The Chinaman was published in 1992 and the title was changed.

The film is really two pictures. Chan’s half is a grieving man conducting a one-man campaign in the Northern Irish countryside. Pierce Brosnan’s half is a former paramilitary turned government minister managing a political crisis, and Brosnan is excellent in it. Campbell had directed GoldenEye and Casino Royale, both Bond debuts.

Quan Ngoc Minh’s background is delivered in pieces and the film trusts the audience to assemble it. Special forces, Vietnam, two other daughters already lost, and Chan plays the role as exhaustion instead of rage. Chan produced it through his own company and took a major pay cut.

The action is deliberately unglamorous. He’s sixty-three in the film and it shows on purpose. He hides, he sets traps, he’s hurt badly and slowly, and Campbell never lets a sequence look easy for him at any point. It was shot in London and across Northern Ireland over about three months.

For WritersCampbell casts a performer the audience has watched be delightful for four decades and removes every trace of it. No jokes, no prop gags, no smile. The absence carries meaning the script never has to supply. When you write against a reader’s expectation of a character type, the omission makes the point. What’s missing tones harder than what is present, provided the reader knows what should have been there. The reader has to know the type well enough to miss it, so the technique fails on a character they’re meeting for the first time.

↑ All Entries

15. Wonder Woman (2017) [full review]

► Read the full review of Wonder Woman (2017)

2017
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.3/10

"It is built around what its lead can do, not what she cannot."

Patty Jenkins made the first good film in the DC sequence and the reason is tonal. Gal Gadot plays Diana as sincere, curious and completely without cynicism, in a series that had spent three films establishing that sincerity was embarrassing. Allan Heinberg wrote the screenplay and Zack Snyder shares the story credit.

The No Man’s Land sequence is the best scene in any superhero film of the decade and Jenkins had to fight to keep it. She walks into machine gun fire alone because somebody asked for help, the trench behind her follows, and the film states its entire argument in about four minutes.

Chris Pine’s Steve Trevor is doing more work than the part usually gets. He’s a competent professional who’s out of his depth, he never resents her capability, and the relationship is built on him explaining a world that doesn’t make sense to either of them. Themyscira gets a first hour more interesting than the genre normally permits. The training, the argument between Hippolyta and Antiope about whether Diana should be prepared, and a mythology delivered through a painted book instead of through exposition. Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen play Antiope and Hippolyta.

The last act is the film’s weakness and it’s the genre’s weakness generally. Ares arrives, the practical fighting becomes a digital one, and a picture about whether people deserve saving resolves into two beings throwing lightning at each other. It took over eight hundred million dollars and was the first of the sequence to profit clearly.

No Man’s Land is the scene I’d hand to anybody who says superhero films can’t move a grown man. Jenkins bet on sincerity after three films of sneering at it, and she was right. Then Ares arrives, a picture about whether people deserve saving turns into two glowing figures throwing lightning, and I felt cheated. That last act is the whole reason this sits at an eight for me.

For WritersJenkins gives Diana no cynicism at all and the film never punishes her for it. She walks into fire because somebody asked, and the men behind her follow because they’ve run out of arguments. When you write sincerity into a story that expects irony, commit completely and let the world be wrong instead of the character. One who is vindicated changes the book around them. The passive protagonist problem is adjacent. Let the world be wrong instead of the character, because a sincere protagonist who gets corrected has simply been taught a lesson. Vindication also has to cost the world something, or the sincerity reads as luck instead of a position that held.

↑ All Entries

16. Ghost in the Shell (2017) [full review]

► Read the full review of Ghost in the Shell (2017)

2017
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 6.3/10

"Reproduces the images and not the philosophy."

Rupert Sanders made a beautiful film with a hollow center. The visual design reproduces specific shots from the 1995 anime with enormous care, and an origin story has replaced the philosophical material that gave the original its weight. Mamoru Oshii’s 1995 anime runs eighty-three minutes and adapts Masamune Shirow.

The casting controversy overwhelmed everything else and the film’s own script made it worse by adding a plot explanation for why a Japanese character’s brain is in a white body. The defense and the problem became the same object. It cost around one hundred and ten million dollars and lost money for Paramount.

Scarlett Johansson is well cast for the physical performance. The Major moves wrong on purpose, the thermoptic camouflage sequences are the best material in the film, and the geisha robot fight is staged with real precision. Sanders had previously made Snow White and the Huntsman. Beat Takeshi plays Aramaki and delivers every line in Japanese while everybody responds in English, the only element of the production that treats the source with any confidence. Nobody in the film remarks on it. Clint Mansell and Lorne Balfe scored it together. Pilou Asbaek plays Batou alongside him.

I enjoyed watching it, and that pleasure is where the whole eight comes from. Johansson moves exactly right and the camouflage scenes are gorgeous. The flaw is how little faith the production had in the thing it bought. It copied the pictures, threw out the question that made the anime worth copying, and then wrote the casting problem into the plot as if an explanation would make it go away.

For WritersSanders replaces a question about what constitutes a self with an answer about who stole a body. The first is a theme and the second is a plot, and swapping one for the other guts the material while leaving every image intact. When you adapt something, identify what the original was asking instead of what happened in it. A faithful reproduction of events that discards the underlying question produces a correct-looking object with nothing underneath it. Write the question down in one sentence before you start, and check every scene you keep against it instead of against the original’s plot.

↑ All Entries

17. Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023) [full review]

► Read the full review of Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (2023)

2023
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 7.2/10

"Knows what it is and commits without apology."

Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley made a film from a tabletop game and solved the problem nobody had solved: the game has no story. They built one about a heist crew and let the setting be the backdrop instead of the subject. Wizards of the Coast produced alongside Paramount.

Chris Pine plays a bard who’s bad at everything except persuasion, the correct joke, and the film sustains it. He talks his way through most obstacles, he’s useless in a fight, and the party carries him constantly. Michelle Rodriguez, Rege-Jean Page and Hugh Grant complete the principal cast.

The practical effects work is the reason it looks better than its budget. Displacer beasts, an owlbear and a dragon built as animatronics with digital assistance instead of replacement, and the creatures have weight the genre had mostly stopped attempting. Lorne Balfe scored it and the film cost around one hundred and fifty million dollars.

The graveyard sequence is the best comedy set piece in any fantasy film. Five corpses, five questions each, and the film establishes the rules of the spell precisely enough that the audience can see the constraint being worked around. It underperformed in cinemas and found its audience on streaming afterward.

The film’s tone is the achievement and it’s harder than it looks. It’s funny without being embarrassed by the fantasy, sincere about the characters, and it never stops to explain a rule the audience doesn’t need to follow what’s happening. Justice Smith and Sophia Lillis complete the party.

Game adaptations have earned my suspicion, and this one got right past it.

The graveyard scene delighted me, and I’m happy to see a fantasy film that isn’t ashamed of its owlbears. My knock is the stakes. It plays things so safe that I never once worried anybody in the party would pay a real price.

For WritersThe graveyard scene works because the spell has stated limits. Five corpses, five questions each, no repeats, and the audience can watch the characters engineer around the constraint in real time. Magic with rules is a puzzle the reader can play. Systems that hold under pressure covers stated limits. State the boundaries before the first use, since magic without rules is a convenience and every later use reads as the author solving their own problem. Rules also generate comedy for free, because a character working around a limit is funnier than one who simply has no limits at all.

Honor Among Thieves states the limits of a spell and builds its best scene out of working around them. Give magic rules, using the World Builder’s Handbook.

↑ All Entries

18. Havoc (2025) [full review]

► Read the full review of Havoc (2025)

2025
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 6.0/10

"Gareth Evans in a studio, and the choreography survived the transition."

Gareth Evans made his first American film and the production was delayed for years by the pandemic and by reshoots. It arrived on Netflix in 2025 to a reception that was warmer among people who knew The Raid than among anybody else. Forest Whitaker, Timothy Olyphant and Jessie Mei Li fill out the cast.

The nightclub sequence is the reason to watch it. Evans stages a three-way firefight in a confined space with sustained camera movement, and the choreography is the closest anything has come to his Indonesian work in a Western production. Evans had made The Raid, The Raid 2 and Apostle before this.

Tom Hardy plays a corrupt detective in a way that’s closer to mumbling than to acting for long stretches, a deliberate choice the film never justifies. He’s exhausted, compromised and mostly incomprehensible. It was shot in Wales standing in for an unnamed American city.

The plot is standard and the film knows it. A dead son, a stolen shipment, a mayoral campaign and a triad enforcer, assembled from parts the genre has used for decades. Nothing in the structure is doing anything the action doesn’t need it to.

For WritersEvans puts every resource into the sequences and leaves the plot entirely conventional, a defensible allocation and a visible one. The film is honest about where its interest lies. A serviceable structure carrying extraordinary material is a better outcome than an elaborate structure carrying nothing in particular. Know which part of the book is the reason it exists and spend accordingly, because apologizing for the rest costs you pages you needed elsewhere. Decide it before the outline, since a book that discovers its own subject in the third act has already overbuilt the first two.

↑ All Entries

19. Battleship (2012) [full review]

► Read the full review of Battleship (2012)

2012
RLR: 8 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 5.7/10

"A board game with no story, and the one sequence that plays the game works."

Peter Berg made a two-hundred-and-nine-million-dollar film from a board game with no characters, no setting and no story, a harder adaptation problem than it sounds and one nobody asked to have solved. Jon and Erich Hoeber wrote it and Hasbro produced alongside Universal. Hasbro had pushed the property since Transformers.

The grid sequence is the film’s one moment of real invention. Tsunami buoys are used to generate a coordinate grid so the crew can fire blind at positions they can’t see, and for about six minutes the picture is playing the game it’s named after. The USS Missouri sequence is better than the film deserves. Surviving veterans in their eighties crew a museum battleship and take it out under steam, and the veterans on screen are real instead of performers. Taylor Kitsch, Alexander Skarsgard and Liam Neeson lead the cast.

Everything else is Transformers with ships. The aliens are armored and shaped for toy manufacture, the human material is thin, and Rihanna is given dialogue nobody could have delivered. The film lost a heavy amount of money. Berg had made Friday Night Lights and The Kingdom before it.

I gave this an eight and I know how that sounds next to the rest of this entry. The Missouri did it.

Real veterans taking an old battleship out under steam moved me more than any board game movie had a right to, and the grid scene is the one stretch where the film seems to be having as much fun as I was. The rest is noise, and Rihanna deserved lines a person could say.

For WritersThe one sequence that works is the one where the film commits to its own source. Firing blind at grid coordinates is the board game rendered literally, and it’s the only passage in two hours with a real idea in it. When you adapt something thin, the distinctive element is usually the thing everybody wants to discard as embarrassing. Build toward the distinctive element instead of away from it, since a weak premise executed precisely beats a strong one executed generically. The embarrassing element is usually the distinctive one, and discarding it leaves you with a generic film nobody needed adapted.

↑ All Entries

20. The Dogs of War (1980) [full review]

► Read the full review of The Dogs of War (1980)

1980
RLR: 7 / 10
⭐ IMDB: 6.3/10

"Far more interested in procurement than in combat."

John Irvin adapted Frederick Forsyth and Christopher Walken plays a mercenary hired to overthrow an African government for a mining concession. The film’s interest is almost entirely procedural and that’s its strength. Forsyth published the novel in 1974 after reporting from Biafra during the civil war.

The best half is the preparation. Reconnaissance under a false identity, arms purchased through a Spanish broker, a ship chartered, end-user certificates forged, and the film treats all of it as the logistics problem it is. Gary DeVore and George Malko wrote the screenplay.

Walken plays Shannon as somebody with no politics and no curiosity about the politics of anybody else. He’s a contractor, the job is a job, and the film declines to give him a conversion or a conscience until the last two minutes. Tom Berenger and Colin Blakely appear alongside Walken in the mercenary team.

The assault is short and ugly. That’s correct. Forsyth’s point was never the battle. The coup takes minutes, the mercenaries win easily, and the film’s last decision is Shannon installing a leader his employers didn’t want. Much of it was shot in Belize standing in for the fictional Zangaro.

Paperwork as suspense is a pleasure I don’t get often enough, and Forsyth knew exactly where the work of a coup sits. My reservation is Shannon. Walken plays him so empty for so long that the conscience in the last two minutes feels bolted on, and I end up respecting this film more than I enjoy it.

For WritersForsyth spends most of the story on procurement and almost none on combat, because the difficulty was always in the paperwork. Getting weapons onto a ship legally is harder than using them. When you write an operation, ask where the real friction sits. It’s usually not where the genre says it should be, and a book that finds the actual difficulty reads as authoritative without ever claiming expertise. Ask a practitioner what the boring part is, because the boring part is almost always where the actual difficulty in an operation lives. Research the procedure and the plot will find its obstacles on its own, because real processes come with real failure points attached.

Honorable Mentions: Action Films Without a Review Here Yet

No review on the site for any of these so far. Each belongs in this tier or close to it and each is on the list.

A Touch of Zen (1971)

⭐ 7.4/10

King Hu spent three years on a three-hour wuxia film that turns into something closer to a religious parable in its last act. The bamboo grove sequence is where the entire visual grammar of the genre was invented.

The One-Armed Swordsman (1967)

⭐ 7.1/10

Chang Cheh made the first Hong Kong film to take a million dollars and built it on a hero who has to relearn his craft after a maiming. The broken-blade manual is the device every later wuxia picture borrowed.

Five Deadly Venoms (1978)

⭐ 7.1/10

Five masters of different animal styles and a student who doesn’t know which of them can be trusted. The structure is a mystery instead of a tournament, and almost no martial arts film had attempted that.

The Prodigal Son (1981)

⭐ 7.3/10

Sammo Hung directed a Wing Chun film where the protagonist discovers his father bought his entire reputation by paying opponents to lose. Yuen Biao is extraordinary and the opera troupe sequences are the best in the form.

The Bride with White Hair (1993)

⭐ 7.1/10

Ronny Yu made a wuxia romance with conjoined twin antagonists and a color scheme closer to opera than to cinema. It’s strange and the tone holds for the full running time.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

⭐ 7.9/10

Ang Lee won four Academy Awards with a wuxia film built on restraint and unspoken obligation. The bamboo forest sequence is the image everybody kept and the teahouse fight is the better piece of choreography.

House of Flying Daggers (2004)

⭐ 7.5/10

Zhang Yimou built a film around color, with a bamboo ambush, an echo game in a drum hall and a final duel that runs through four seasons in a single location. The plot is thin and the images aren’t.

The Assassin (2015)

⭐ 6.2/10

Hou Hsiao-hsien made a wuxia film where the fights last seconds and the scenes between them last minutes. It divides audiences completely and the Cannes directing prize suggests which side the jury took.

Red Cliff (2008)

⭐ 7.3/10

John Woo returned to China for a two-part historical epic running close to five hours in the original cut. The tortoise formation sequence is the largest thing he ever staged and almost all of it is practical.

Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001)

⭐ 7.0/10

Christophe Gans combined an eighteenth century French mystery with Hong Kong choreography and a Native American tracker. It shouldn’t work. It was the highest-grossing French-language film in America for years.

Fist of Legend (1994)

⭐ 7.5/10

Jet Li remade Bruce Lee’s Fist of Fury with Yuen Woo-ping choreographing, and the blindfolded duel at the end is frequently cited as the best hand-to-hand sequence ever put on film.

Come Drink With Me (1966)

⭐ 7.1/10

King Hu gave Cheng Pei-pei the lead in a Shaw Brothers film that established the template for every wuxia picture afterward. The inn sequence is the origin of a scene the genre has restaged for sixty years.

Dishonorable Mentions: Action Films That Failed

Also unreviewed here. Each had the budget, the cast or the premise and lost it somewhere between the pitch and the edit.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

⭐ 6.5/10

A film that rewrites the first two pictures inside its own opening and then spoils its central reveal in the trailer. The timeline requires a chart and the chart doesn’t resolve.

Terminator: Dark Fate (2019)

⭐ 6.2/10

Cameron returned as producer and the film opens by killing the character two films were spent saving, a defensible choice that removes any reason to have watched them. It lost around one hundred million dollars.

Alien vs. Predator (2004)

⭐ 5.6/10

Two R-rated franchises combined into a PG-13 film set under Antarctica, with a pyramid that rearranges itself every ten minutes so the characters can be separated on schedule.

Jumper (2008)

⭐ 6.1/10

A premise about instantaneous travel anywhere on earth, attached to a protagonist who uses it to rob banks and sit on the Sphinx. The antagonists are introduced fully formed with no explanation of the conflict.

Priest (2011)

⭐ 5.6/10

A post-apocalyptic theocracy, vampire hives and a train, converted to 3D after shooting and released into an indifferent market. The world is more interesting than anything the plot does inside it.

Season of the Witch (2011)

⭐ 5.4/10

Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman transport an accused witch across plague-era Europe, a good setup resolved by a demon and a digital wolf pack. The ambiguity is dropped at the midpoint.

↑ Back to Navigation

What Do You Think?

Two remakes in this tier justify their existence and two don’t. Yuma and the 2016 Magnificent Seven kept the structure, and Total Recall and Ghost in the Shell kept the images and dropped the thing people cared about in the originals. That’s worse than an honest failure, because keeping the look and tossing the idea is a decision somebody made on purpose. Tell me whether that’s the whole difference.

Continue the Series

Part 1: The Masterpieces |
Part 2: The Near Perfect |
Part 3: The Excellent |
Part 4: The Very Good |
Part 5: The Solid Craft |
Part 6: The Dependable |
Part 7: The Watchable |
Part 8: The Flawed |
Part 9: The Mediocre |
Part 10: The Poor |
Part 11: The Failures

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the 2007 3:10 to Yuma change from the original?
It puts the two men on a road for days instead of confining them to a hotel room for hours. The negotiation has somewhere to develop, the single structural change that justifies the remake.
Why does removing Wolverine’s healing factor work?
A character who can’t be killed has no scenes of real risk available. Taking the ability away restores every one of them, so the bullet train sequence is tense in a way the rest of the franchise rarely manages.
Is Sucker Punch meant to be read as triumphant?
The film’s own position is that the fantasy sequences are dissociation instead of triumph, with each one corresponding to something happening while the character isn’t present. A large part of the audience read the surface instead.
How did Colin Firth train for Kingsman?
Six months, and he performed the majority of his own choreography at fifty-three with no previous action work. The church sequence looks like one continuous take and is assembled from several.
Why is John Wick’s action easier to follow?
Stahelski and Leitch shoot fights in wide frames and hold the takes, so the choreography has to work without editing to disguise it. Reeves trained for months so his reloads and transitions could stay in frame.
How does Doctor Strange defeat Dormammu?
He traps himself in a time loop and dies repeatedly until the entity finds it intolerable and bargains. It’s a resolution through endurance instead of force, and the genre almost never attempts it.
What went wrong with the Ghost in the Shell adaptation?
It reproduces specific images from the 1995 anime with care and replaces the question about what constitutes a self with an origin story. The casting decision was then written into the plot, making the problem worse.
Was the Battleship grid sequence from the game?
Yes, and it’s the one passage where the film commits to its source. Tsunami buoys generate a coordinate grid so the crew can fire blind at positions they can’t see, the board game rendered literally.

About the Author
Richard Lowe, professional ghostwriter

Richard Lowe is a professional ghostwriter and author with 113+ books authored and 54+ ghostwritten. Before writing full time he spent 33 years in enterprise technology, including 20 years as Director of Computer Operations and Technical Services at Trader Joe's. He writes nonfiction, fiction and memoir, and works with executives and experts on books that build authority.

More about Richard Lowe →

Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely those of Richard Lowe and are based on personal experience and research. This content is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as professional legal, financial, accounting, or business advice. Always consult with qualified professionals before making important business or legal decisions. Richard Lowe is not a lawyer, accountant, or licensed professional advisor, and this content does not establish any professional relationship.

0 comments

No comments yet. Yours can be the first.

Was this useful?

Leave a comment