#chloe steele

Maybe if you've never read the books, it could be construed as good. There is a lot of explosions and close calls and things of the sort. 

Seriously. The saving grace of the first movie was the casting and the fact that they really tried to play true to the book (sure they dropped a lot and added in a few things but you could at least look at the book and the movie and see how they were related). 

What I don't get is the same writers/directors/everything did this movie? WHY DID THEY CHANGE SO MUCH?!

Also, Cassi Thomson and Nic Cage as Chloe and Rayford Steele? Uh. No. I'm sorry. Cassi Thomson is the least convincing Chloe ever. I may be biased because I adore Janaya Stephens but she brought a gravitas to the character that Cassi Thomson just can't. And as much as I love Nic Cage's early stuff (I really, really do) this was probably his worst role ever (Where as Brad Johnson as Rayford? SO BELIEVABLE). 

Chad Michael Murray could have been an excellent Buck. Had they given him a role big enough to fill. But since they basically based the whole movie off the first three chapters of the book there was no plot line for Buck other than him thinking Ray's daughter was cute. 

WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY BIGGEST POINT OF CONTENTION: THAT IS NOT HOW BUCK AND CHLOE MET. DO NOT MESS WITH THEIR STORY. THEIR STORY WAS HONESTLY ONE OF THE BEST PARTS OF THE WHOLE SERIES AND THIS MOVIE TRASHED IT. 

Oh yeah. And Chloe? In the movie is a joke. Chloe in the books is together and sassy and strong. In the movie she comes off as petulant and childish. Chloe doesn't nearly fling herself off a bridge. Chloe is a badass. Okay, yeah, at the end there? They kind of managed to get Chloe to where she should be but just barely. And also THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN THE BOOKS. NOT EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE. WTF. Yes, this twenty something year old college student can totally make a makeshift runway for her dad in the dark in a city fallen to the apocalypse. 

(yeah... the story plays much better in Chicago than New York btw)

AND WTF IS WITH MAKING HATTIE SUCH A BIG DEAL IN THIS MOVIE? Yes, Hattie is excellent and I even kind of like Nicky Whelan as Hattie (though I really preferred Chelsea Noble). But Hattie in the first book? Had very little plot. Hattie in the first movie? Very little plot. 

And then there's the part where they totally didn't include Nicolae or Stonogal or Cothran. No Chaim Rosenweig. Raymie's practically a baby. Irene's character is a joke. And they only used Bruce for like two seconds. And that was with Chloe and not Ray. 

The only part they did remotely well was casting Chad Michael Murray as Buck. He does lend a grittier side to Buck than Kirk Cameron could and Buck had a much grittier background that Kirk Cameron was willing to portray in the first rendition. 

So much hate for this new one. I need to cleanse my palate. Gonna go reread the books and watch the original movies now.