The Orion Team. discussion

Well, I don't know who was it this movie I just saw, but it wasn't Mitch Rapp...

James wrote: "Well, I don't know who was it this movie I just saw, but it wasn't Mitch Rapp..."

Getting conflicted reports on the movie. Some like it, some hate it, others say the writing and action is terrible but loved the performances by Keaton and O'Brien, and others say everything is terrible.

The single bright spot in this movie is Micheal Keaton. I thought Latham did OK but I absolutely hate when they change a character's race (any race)

James wrote: "The single bright spot in this movie is Micheal Keaton. I thought Latham did OK but I absolutely hate when they change a character's race (any race)"

Indeed. Just not necessary.

James wrote: "The single bright spot in this movie is Micheal Keaton. I thought Latham did OK but I absolutely hate when they change a character's race (any race)"

Would they have done better if they had turned it into a historical fiction film and kept the 1990's setting?

I think would be better if they, I don't know...read the book

I found the movie to be all right, I don't regret seeing it but it does take a lot of liberty with the book. The modernization of the plot didn't bother me too much, I think Bali would have been more realistic than Spain. Casting/portrayal of Stan and Irene were very similar to how I pictured them in the books. I don't regret seeing the movie but I probably won't buy it on DVD when it comes out.

Emily wrote: "I found the movie to be all right, I don't regret seeing it but it does take a lot of liberty with the book. The modernization of the plot didn't bother me too much, I think Bali would have been mo..."

Yeah, or even Phuket would have been more appropriate for the opening (they filmed there and all) considering the presence of the Southern Thai Muslim insurgency down there.

I found the movie to be entertaining. So, at the most basic, that's good. But there were some things that I thought were issues or missed opportunities.

The casting was not bad. Irene Kennedy came out very different to what I had in my head, both in terms of race (obviously) & portrayal... she doesn't give off that 'cold and analytical' vibe as she seems to in the novel. Which is a pity. In the novel, Stan seems to be one of the few people to get Irene to have emotional reactions, and that'd be nice to see.

Stan was superbly cast, and the changes to his character came across well. So no issues there.

Mitch Rapp was an interesting casting choice... And frankly, quite to my surprise, I think it worked for the most part. But, the way they characterized Rapp was where I had some issues.

Case in point - disciplinary issues? Very cliché, and a missed opportunity for something new in the movie genre. I loved the part in the novel where he speaks about revenge/retribution with the psychiatrist... you really got to see Rapp's linear personality, how he takes personal trauma, uses it as positive drive to dish out morally appropriate & proportionate punishment to the terrorists & prevent them from doing it to anyone else. You didn't really get that in the movie... It still seems more like he's seeking personal revenge... Not bad, but still less great.

Also absent is any allusions to Rapp's natural athleticism... that might have been nice, because it'd give credence to how fast he develops these skills and his frankly athletic abilities. It'd add some believability... not everyone can do what Rapp does, even if they wanted to.

I kind of liked how the bad guy was sort of a mirror to Rapp, but that whole nuclear bomb set piece at the end was a unnecessary, imo. It would have been better if Ghost was killing off intelligence assets, to the point that intelligence was drying up in the middle east, and that orion needed to get up and running to find a way to stop it. Yes, there'd be less CGI spectacle, but I'm so over that.

But, hell... It was enjoyable nonetheless. I hope they make enough money to make a sequel... Maybe make some improvements.

Anyway, those were my meandering thoughts...

Varun wrote: "I found the movie to be entertaining. So, at the most basic, that's good. But there were some things that I thought were issues or missed opportunities.

The casting was not bad. Irene Kennedy came..."

Hmmm. I like your suggestion Varun about the substitute to the nuclear bomb. It would have shades of "The Last Man" and "The Survivor" and tie neatly in to the series. The nuke in the film was probably a nod to "Memorial Day", along with the escape via helicopter.

Samuel wrote: "Varun wrote: "I found the movie to be entertaining. So, at the most basic, that's good. But there were some things that I thought were issues or missed opportunities.

The casting was not bad. Iren..."

Probably was, but every action movie these days has something world shattering like that now. With this first movie, it should have been a much more "intimate" affair... so the characters could be highlighted. And having dueling spies... the antagonist being more experienced, that would be great thriller material... I don't think you see that much... remember 006 in Goldeneye?

Varun wrote: "Samuel wrote: "Varun wrote: "I found the movie to be entertaining. So, at the most basic, that's good. But there were some things that I thought were issues or missed opportunities.

The casting wa..."

Absolutely. Sean Bean's Alec Trevelyan in my opinion was the greatest modern James Bond antagonist. Clever, witty and the perfect dark reflection of James Bond.

I found the plot very 'by the numbers'. When in doubt, introduce a nuclear weapon. The casting for Kennedy was off. I don't think Kennedy has ever cussed and in the movie she's going blow for blow with Stan. Keaton, btw, was great. A bit cliché' with the old grizzled warrior bit but still, leave it to Batman to save the day. I thought he was more of the star than Rapp. Which was a very bad casting. I think they could have made his origin closer to the novel. Watching his loved one die before is too Batman. Hmm, Batman again...coincidence?

Let me just say first off I'm not a big Vince Flynn or Mitch Rapp fan.
That said I've read a few of the books and of them all I can remember about one is he was in Germany running around a forest (or park maybe) with others hot on his tail. I think.. So that book didn't leave much of an impression obviously, but I did like it ok at the time.
The second one was they enlisted some old worker who managed to give them blueprints to the white house I believe it was.. Again didn't really leave much of an impression but I did like it fine at the time.
I've read just over half of American Assassin that was about a year ago..
So you see the pattern.
I'm just saying outright that I'm not a big fan and can't really tell you much about them.
Twice I've went to watch this movie and twice I've been so distracted and left uninterested that I failed to finish it on both occasions.
So I dunno if it's just me that felt it wasn't anywhere near as interesting as it could have been.
But I will try again to watch it mainly cause I want to see how it compares to the half of the book I've read.. 😂

It's you.

While I am a big fan of Mitch Rapp/Vince Flynn, I have not been able to bring myself to watch this movie. I am not naive enough to believe that the book could be faithfully transmitted from its pages to the screen (I suffered through Lord of the Rings), but based off the previews it appears that they have done a disservice.

Hopefully I am wrong, and if you have seen the movie and can refute this post I would gladly be wrong.