I am a long time Cusack fan and had never seen this movie. So I am working my way through all the Cusack films I have never seen. I like off-beat indie films. So I finally saw this last night and did not like it at all. Very disappointing.
shareWhoa what? Really?? I thought this was on of the better.
shareI suppose you prefer his crappy romantic comedies.
shareI didn't like the movie either, it just made me fell uncomfortable the whole way through, but isn't really like many other Cusack films and maybe that's whjy it doesn't sit so well.
shareI love both this yucky movie and his crappy romantic comedies! :P
shareyeah, God forbid a talented actor taking a risk, especially when actors are trying to establish themselves on talent, like most actors do when they are 25, like what Cusack did.
shareI have to agree. I really enjoy John Cusack's acting, usually... but in this movie he just comes across as being wooden and unemotional. Sure, he's a con man, and sure that makes him somewhat detached. But still, for a subject matter like this, the movie could have been so much more interesting.
The whole thing was just slow and off-putting. About the only parts I really enjoyed were Bobo's scenes. Bobo stole the show, hands down.
[deleted]
Cusack hated it as well. I met him at the screening after we both walked out meeting in the lobby.He was so disapointed in the film as was I.
shareI have been wanting to see this movie for 20 years. Maybe I would have liked it had I seen it when it was first released, but I am used to a much faster pace in film now. I think this would have made a great episode of Leverage, the "story" could have been packed into a nice tight 40 minutes, instead of dragging on and on for almost 2 hours of filler. Cusack was good in it, especially for his young age, but it's hard to make filet mignon out of hamburger.
shareWow you must have horrible taste in movies. This was a flawless adaptation of Jim Thompson's novel.
I have to agree with bourneidentity1980. The film is awesome. There have been a number of attempts to turn Jim Thompson novels into movies and for the most part, they don't work very well. Mainly because Thompson's writing tended to go WAY over the top, esp. for its time. Pulp fiction indeed. No one ever even tried to film his ending to 'The Getaway'. It was just too freaking weird. This, however, gets it right. Cusack is pretty awesome. As Roy Dillon, he can't show much of anything, neither emotion nor pain (which he is in a lot of throughout most of the film; his kidney is damaged right off the bat, pun intended). Roy Dillon uses his blankness in order to run his cons. But it is Angelica Houston who steals the show. She is as dangerous as flying shards of glass.
shareI would say Jim Thompson is generally unfilmable. His books work great as novels but it's hard not to lose something in the translation. The fact that this film worked so well is a testament to how great it is.
The adaptation of "After Dark, My Sweet" was pretty great but I hated "The Killer Inside Me" both adaptations fell flat for me.
The recent version was really over the top but it was just way too glossy for me.
This is my favorite John Cusack performance though. I see him in movies today and it kind of makes me sad. I feel like he peaked with this film and it's all been downhill from there.
Unfortunately, not been able to see Coup de Torchon (Pop 1280) with Philippe Noiret, which sounds a good adaptation, but I enjoyed 'The Grifters' and surprised, if true, that Cusack disowned it. It was directed by Stephen Frears, who is a very good director and probably ironed out goofy behaviour. I think Terry Gilliam did the same with Bruce Willis in 12 Monkeys, so that Willis produced one of his most memorable performances.
Cusack is just part of a terrific ensemble, alongside Annette Bening and Angelica Huston, who is magnificent as Lily. The final scenes with her in the lift descending in her red dress, she has damned herself and is in hell.
I thought it was one of Cusack's better roles, the hustler who is out of his league. It's a dark film, not to everybody's taste.
Kinda funny that when she left Roy's place, she had blood on her leg but it wasn't there in the elevator.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
Cusack hated it as well. I met him at the screening after we both walked out meeting in the lobby.He was so disapointed in the film as was I.
Career Highlight, Can mean just about anything.Trust me he was very disappointed in the finished film.When I walked out and found him in the lobby I was surprised. When neither of us made a move to re-enter we spoke about how much we disliked the film and it's lack of energy. In other words BORING. He totally agreed. I remember even mentioning Bening's red knit backless dress being quite grotesque exposing her boney back.Very unattractive.
shareYes, "a career highlight" can mean many vague things - but all of them positive.
You ask us to trust you, but I'm afraid members who only give movies 1 or 10 stars in order to maximize skewing the average scores in their favour like you seem to do, have not much credibility left in my book.
In fact, you mentioning how you even called Cusack's co-star grotesque and unattractive to his face makes me picture a scene where he could've just been vaguely humouring a pesky fan just to get rid of them more easily. Plus of course many movie stars don't actually want to see a movie they're in each and every time it's screened, so I wouldn't read too much into finding Cusack outside in the lobby while the movie was on.
Me, I still believe Cusack likes the film. It's too good for him not to. And he's actually known to have a pretty good taste in movies.
From the performances to the dialogue and tone, it held my complete attention. A real pleasant surprise for me overall.
That being said, something about it is kind of... yucky.
Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!
For some reason I like it less than when I first saw it. Must be old age. I thought it was interesting 25 years ago.
share