I've seen more than enough of John Lyde's pictures to know he is a capable filmmaker, even if he chooses to operate on the level he does (TV movies and similarly minded second- or third-tier fare). I'm familiar with several folks with small parts in the supporting cast, who for better or worse were the names that drew me to watch this in the first place (Melanie Stone, Danielle C. Ryan, Renny Grames). I'll watch just about anything (also for better or worse). I suppose there was no more or less potential here than in any other movie, and it's passably enjoyable in much the same way as any title can be so long as it isn't abjectly rotten. Is all this enough to deserve viewership? I guess that depends on each individual; for my part, I think it's okay if you come across it, but unless you're a huge fan of someone involved, there's no major reason to watch.
Not all Lyde's features are equal, and when one is weaker than another, it's hard to tell if it's a question of a lacking screenplay, a bad day on Lyde's part, or something else. Duly, basically entertaining as 'Riot' is, its value arguably comes and goes in accordance with the appearance on-screen of those actors we already like. There are a lot of fight scenes and stunts, and they look fine, but often lack a certain finesse. I generally like the production design and art direction. The hair and makeup work is pretty swell; suitable as the costume design is, given the setting, it's not exactly revelatory. The more explosive the effects, the less believable they are (including some establishing shots of an unremarkable cityscape), but the simpler ones look great. I could do with fewer flashbacks, and even beyond this the plot is communicated with less than perfect passion or care, but such as it is the story and its characters are ably written and engaging. The dialogue is much less impressive, and the scene writing is a little blunt or on the nose, but so it goes.
Just as the film at large is rather uneven, it also informs the acting in a like manner. I think some cast members do a really fantastic job; Ryan and Stone in particular are clearly having a blast, and that spirit is passed on to the viewer - though again the bias of my favor may be showing. Supporting cast members, especially those portraying random prisoners, are less noteworthy, though it's probably not their fault. And so on, and so on. It's not that 'Riot' is bad; I believe it's competently made in most every regard, and the cast surely make the most of what they're given to work with. To the credit of all involved, the titular ballyhoo in the last quarter definitely got the most attention of any aspect of the picture, and the cavalcade of fights we get in the last stretch is more well done than anything else in these 90 minutes. Still, it's just that there's not truly anything special about it; watch it or not, your day will be the same. Is this worth ninety minutes of your time? Sure, why not. Is there any critical need to check it out? Not at all. It's decent enough to be "average" overall, and for the average moviegoer the fight scenes are probably the best reason to watch. Maybe that's all 'Riot' needs to be.
Not all Lyde's features are equal, and when one is weaker than another, it's hard to tell if it's a question of a lacking screenplay, a bad day on Lyde's part, or something else. Duly, basically entertaining as 'Riot' is, its value arguably comes and goes in accordance with the appearance on-screen of those actors we already like. There are a lot of fight scenes and stunts, and they look fine, but often lack a certain finesse. I generally like the production design and art direction. The hair and makeup work is pretty swell; suitable as the costume design is, given the setting, it's not exactly revelatory. The more explosive the effects, the less believable they are (including some establishing shots of an unremarkable cityscape), but the simpler ones look great. I could do with fewer flashbacks, and even beyond this the plot is communicated with less than perfect passion or care, but such as it is the story and its characters are ably written and engaging. The dialogue is much less impressive, and the scene writing is a little blunt or on the nose, but so it goes.
Just as the film at large is rather uneven, it also informs the acting in a like manner. I think some cast members do a really fantastic job; Ryan and Stone in particular are clearly having a blast, and that spirit is passed on to the viewer - though again the bias of my favor may be showing. Supporting cast members, especially those portraying random prisoners, are less noteworthy, though it's probably not their fault. And so on, and so on. It's not that 'Riot' is bad; I believe it's competently made in most every regard, and the cast surely make the most of what they're given to work with. To the credit of all involved, the titular ballyhoo in the last quarter definitely got the most attention of any aspect of the picture, and the cavalcade of fights we get in the last stretch is more well done than anything else in these 90 minutes. Still, it's just that there's not truly anything special about it; watch it or not, your day will be the same. Is this worth ninety minutes of your time? Sure, why not. Is there any critical need to check it out? Not at all. It's decent enough to be "average" overall, and for the average moviegoer the fight scenes are probably the best reason to watch. Maybe that's all 'Riot' needs to be.