I would have to agree with the others; I'm sure after a test screening those in charge of its release realized the response it would get, and opted to send it straight on to the shelves.
Other than Cusack (did great with what he had to work with) and Freeman (was surprised at how poor his performance was until much later in the movie), the acting was incredibly bad for all that were involved. This is surprising, since many of the supporting cast are established and tested actors, like Alice Krige, Megan Dodds, Bill Smitrovich, the guy that was the chess-playing henchman (can't ever remember his name, but he's been in a bunch of stuff, and acted well).
I don't buy the "poor script so poor acting" argument 100%; many of the lines are your typical, funny-moment one-liners that you'd see delivered in a much more entertaining or comedic way in any action movie starring "lesser" actors - and they just fall flat when spoken by these pros. Plot holes? There are huge ones, granted, but I feel that the problem is more related to the lack of development given to the characters - we don't get a lot of background or time to establish their motivations, learn their mannerisms and habits, etc. Other than the acting, I'd say this is the biggest issue I have with the movie (Carden's actions are especially confusing, sort of a card-board cut-out of the "hitman with a noble heart" without any real explanation). The entire ending sequence is abominably rushed and slapped together.
The concept is solid, but poorly carried out by all involved. While the script carries some of the blame, I think it could have improved simply by many of the actors' efforts, and they just didn't seem to feel like bothering.
reply
share