Beyond the Reach (2015)

A high-rolling corporate shark and his impoverished young guide play the most dangerous game during a hunting trip in the Mojave Desert. Beyond the Reach definitely benefits from a pretty good and deadly perfomance by Michael Douglas unfortunately that's about it cause the main star? Jeremy Irvine was a pretty bland character and his perfomance was no better either. Definitely a film that except Mr. Douglas perfomance doesn't really do anything more than that plus i've seen the same movie done better and with a better lead actor too. (5/10)

PROS: Hands down the best part of this movie was the acting. I haven't seen acting this good in such a long time. The genuineness and rawness the actors showed was incredible. The characters shared bonds that initiated much of their decisions. The environment was a character in this film. You don't often find that the setting/scenery in which the movie takes place to be so influential, but in this case the environment really acts as though it is its own person. The desert had character development and personality. It played a key role in what made this film what it was. The other thing to point out would be how unparalleled the story ark was compared to any other film I have seen. There was man vs. wild and man vs. man and those two attributes were very well articulated throughout the film. CONS: The one thing for me would have to be how confusing the end of the movie got. I was stuck with the legitimacy of the storyline. The whole film you were gifted with an exceptional idea and setting, but at the end you get a very unwelcoming slap in the face when the movie tries to add stuff that it really didn't need. The extra bells and whistles weren't able to enhance the film which is what their goal was, but in fact it actually drew away from the pureness and integrity of it.www.chorror.com

No doubt that I hate today's Hollywood. That's why I keep watching its old movies recently. And when I come back to watch its new ones, I feel mostly regret. And Beyond the Reach is no exception ! Usually the problem is related to forgetting all about very important factor named : The Script. In old Hollywood, there was a respect for such a holy art. I believe since the American cinema's dawn, the writers came from theater, because "Films" weren't common yet. So a thing like "Drama" was essential in their movies. And in later decades, we had generations which studied and understood those pioneers, and broke their molds as well. Now, there is a newer generation which their work assures that they have nothing to do with drama. They break themselves, and us. And it's the American cinema's night for that matter !The bad writing can be seen in every age. However, the death of writing can be lived today. Especially when Hollywood believes in killing it, paying hundreds of millions of dollars for executing that (just remember Pirates of the Caribbean 2 and 3 for little examples !). Here, we have yet another murder. The plot is too strange to ugly extend. Michael Douglas killed an old prospector, and wants to frame Jeremy Irvine for it. So what did he do ? He killed Irvine, and then reported that the latter went mad, and shot the prospector. Or he tried to do this, but Irvine escaped, so he hunted him to bury the truth. Sorry, it's not this or that. Because while reporting that Irvine went mad, and shot the prospector, Douglas didn't kill him, and Irvine didn't escape. Instead, Douglas forced Irvine to strip naked, and wander off into the barren horizon, to die of dehydration and exposure, which led to one of the most stupid and boring sequences ever captured on film, where Irvine walks into the desert, and Douglas follows him to kill him if he didn't die on his own !!So this is absurd remake of The Most Dangerous Game (1932), running in slow motion, where you wish, for all the time, that the lead just die, to have mercy upon the poor us. Nevertheless, don't you dare think that this is the only problem around !The dialog is extremely weird. Sometimes no line has connection to its subsequent. Or maybe it has, but many things were vaguely deleted in between ! The tragedy hit scenes too. For instance, I didn't comprehend the lead's flash back, where he tells a story about a family that died in the desert. Were they his parents, or else ? And what was their connection to the movie anyway ?? I watched that scene twice, and still I have no idea what was that about ?!!Despite running, on fiery hot sand, barefooted, with no water, under ruthless sun, the lead – on the contrary – seems so cool, and very healthy. Jeremy Irvine is whether the worst actor in a leading role I have seen in years, or gave the worst performance done by an actor in a leading role I have seen in years. He's perfectly lifeless, with bland acting and frozen reactions. In a word, he's a black hole of emotions. Michael Douglas is dead, and what we saw was his ghost. Without any sarcasm, he looked so old and fragile to play the evil guy. Clearly he wasn't that threatening, which took a lot from the movie's credibility, and weakened the conflict, while both – the movie's credibility and conflict – were dead horses already that didn't need more beating !French director Jean-Baptiste Léonetti, in his first Hollywood movie, had a zoom-in frenzy. Sure he needs to check in to the same rehab where they treat Michael Bay from addicting explosions, and Quentin Tarantino from paying homage !It should have ended with its nasty businessman getting away with it. That would have granted the story a chance to uplift its inner metaphor, concerning how rich people enjoy corruption, while poor people are the ones to pay the price. It could have made the movie satirical, bitter, and more memorable, inflaming our rage towards that type of evil. However, they wanted the happy end. Maybe because the producers of it are that evil guy himself, who want you to empty all of your negative feelings towards them before leaving the movie theater, so you forget about that evil guy (s) in real life !Speaking about the producers, I was shocked when I knew that Michael Douglas co-produced THIS! Oh My God, after producing such classics like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), The China Syndrome (1979), Romancing the Stone (1984) and Face/Off (1997), he chose projects like The Sentinel (2006) ?, and Beyond the Reach (2014) ?? Dear Michael, if someone in the world needs Back to the Future's car the most, then it's you. You have to travel into time, to advise your younger self on selecting wisely what to produce in your 60s and 70s !Beyond the Reach is boring stupidity. Sorrowfully, the "boring stupidities" are in fashion since the start of the 2000s. So my sole hope is that every Hollywood scriptwriter, and producer in particular, goes and watches old Hollywood movies, to know how they really lost their way, and discover sublime treasure named : The Script. Otherwise, may they wander off into the barren horizon themselves !

Ben (Jeremy Irvine) is hard up for cash. He's hired by wealthy, ruthless businessman John Madec (Michael Douglas) to be his hunting guide in the desert. Madec has an expensive new truck with all the gadgets and a high powered modern rifle. However, he doesn't have a permit to hunt the bighorn. He bribes Ben with a wad of cash. He carelessly shoots and kills an old prospector. It's a start of a deadly game as Madec tries to cover up his culpability. He leaves Ben in his underwear to die in the scorching desert.It tries to be a hard-edged modern western. Michael Douglas tries too hard to be the villain which borders on camp at times. He needs to tone down the performance which would elevate the tension. The point is to avoid a B-movie sensibility. This does not do that completely successfully. It could have worked a little better as a strict human hunt. Instead, there are lots of little questionable turns. It could have been better.