The "Outside the Wire" Netflix movie is finally out, and critics have offered their fair and honest review about the flick.
On January 15, the "Outside the Wire" Netflix fantasy flick finally graced the streaming site.
The Mikael Hafstrom-directed film features the "Avengers" star Anthony Mackie (who also serves as a producer) as an android super soldier.
"In the near future, a drone pilot sent into a war zone finds himself paired with a top-secret android officer on a mission to stop a nuclear attack," the official synopsis of the movie reads.
Mackie's character works with a drone pilot (Damson Idris) to successfully save the world.
Aside from the two, Emily Beecham (Sofiya), Michael Kelly (Eckhart), and Pilou Asbaek (Victor Koval) also star in the movie.
As of writing, it only gained a 40 percent Tomatometer rating and 31 percent Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes.
But numbers aside, here are some of the "Outside the Wire" reviews from critics to give you a hint of what the movie looks like.
"Outside the Wire" Cannot Figure Out What It Is Fighting For
For Dan Jackson of Thrillist, the new movie is one of the most questionable Anthony Mackie movies out there.
In his review, he noted that the movie only gave a lite version of "Extraction."
"There's no shortage of footage of him running fast and absolutely wrecking random attackers in a digital blur of choreographed violence," he said.
Despite that, its heavy ideas made the movie "ugly" enough to make the viewers question who the character is truly fighting.
The Scenes Are Not Surprising
For fantasy action films, delivering high-quality and intense scenes is a must. Unfortunately, "Outside the Wire" failed to do that.
According to Robert Daniels of the New York Times, the film's camera style and plotline are both problematic.
He noted that that the shaky-camera style--which Roger Ebert referred to as Queasy-Cam--did not fit the film. For instance, the film's opening looks grainy and unstable, preventing the viewers to know who the characters are firing into.
Meanwhile, as for the storyline, Daniels noted that it "lacks" imagination in the present times.
"Under the guise of looming worldwide destruction, the film builds to an overwrought finish involving unsurprising betrayal, and even more undramatic twists," he went on.
If Offered Nothing But Repetitive Scenes
To make the supposedly short scenes long to fit in a two-hour run time is one of the biggest mistakes the creators have done.
The Guardian's Benjamin Lee pointed out the lack of objectives of the anti-war film. Instead of giving the viewers fresh scenes, it shows repetitive rages and debates.
"The blandness of the action, of which there's quite a lot, perhaps works unintentionally in favour of the anti-war debate," he said.