No spoilers yet, will let you know.
I wanted to review this film not because it wasted 80 minutes of my weekend -- which it did -- but because it had so much potential that was ultimately frittered away. And not through poor film-making either. The direction was fine, the movie itself is professionally shot, and the effects/gunshots/gore are all well-done. What killed this film was its screenplay, which violated dramatic story guidelines that have been in place for a hundred years for one reason -- they work.
The first half hour of this film is very promising. Two brothers are driving through the desert. Before long, based on human behavior, it becomes apparent that the setting is post-apocalyptic. Very Road Warrior/Mad Max-ish. Lots of scavenging and cold-blooded killing going on.
(Begin spoilers) One of the brothers is damaged or mentally injured somehow, and is fully dependent on his sibling. The other tougher brother is one mean hombre, capable of pistol shots that I would call impossible in real life. He's a very interesting and mysterious character, and between their relationship and deadly challenges we get plenty of dramatic action. They wind up in a deserted town where the survivors hide like mice in dilapidated trailer homes. This town is run by a cannibal army with a vicious Joker-like boss named Doyle. I don't know about you, but I usually eat this stuff up.
(Begin serious spoilers) Then they're captured by Doyle's goons, and the tough brother is killed straight away. Admittedly, this can work in certain dramatic situations. But in "Drifter's" case the tough brother was the best, most interesting character in the film. Taking him away absolutely ruined any momentum it had, leaving only textbook cannibal gore and a dozen characters you care nothing about. I therefore spent the last 45 minutes of the movie bored to tears and wishing it would end. So, if nothing else, "Drifter" serves as an object lesson in dramatic tension: If you have only one good character, don't kill him off till the end.
I wanted to review this film not because it wasted 80 minutes of my weekend -- which it did -- but because it had so much potential that was ultimately frittered away. And not through poor film-making either. The direction was fine, the movie itself is professionally shot, and the effects/gunshots/gore are all well-done. What killed this film was its screenplay, which violated dramatic story guidelines that have been in place for a hundred years for one reason -- they work.
The first half hour of this film is very promising. Two brothers are driving through the desert. Before long, based on human behavior, it becomes apparent that the setting is post-apocalyptic. Very Road Warrior/Mad Max-ish. Lots of scavenging and cold-blooded killing going on.
(Begin spoilers) One of the brothers is damaged or mentally injured somehow, and is fully dependent on his sibling. The other tougher brother is one mean hombre, capable of pistol shots that I would call impossible in real life. He's a very interesting and mysterious character, and between their relationship and deadly challenges we get plenty of dramatic action. They wind up in a deserted town where the survivors hide like mice in dilapidated trailer homes. This town is run by a cannibal army with a vicious Joker-like boss named Doyle. I don't know about you, but I usually eat this stuff up.
(Begin serious spoilers) Then they're captured by Doyle's goons, and the tough brother is killed straight away. Admittedly, this can work in certain dramatic situations. But in "Drifter's" case the tough brother was the best, most interesting character in the film. Taking him away absolutely ruined any momentum it had, leaving only textbook cannibal gore and a dozen characters you care nothing about. I therefore spent the last 45 minutes of the movie bored to tears and wishing it would end. So, if nothing else, "Drifter" serves as an object lesson in dramatic tension: If you have only one good character, don't kill him off till the end.