what did my fellow females think of this film ?, just curious
I wondered if it was more boy humour
Of course John Cusack being in it is a plus, It's like with "Say Anything" through to now, he makes a character that on the books we wouldn't like, feel like somebody we have sympathy for, he has a face and mannerism you long to forgive.
His character took the path of less resistance, he said in the XTRA's
bit different than my fav film of his "The Jack Bull"
Anyway while I loved his character and thought all the acting was very good.
Oliver Platt from the West Wing was very good
but the story just seemed to drag in place and then be ridiculous, it wasn't a bad film, but it didn't have teeth.
I saw the poster for this film and waited till it came out on DVD to watch it. I thought it was a comedy from the promo so was rather displeased when I found I was not amused by the story at all. I like John Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton as they are both talented actors and work well together. All of the cast did well with difficult material.
I decided to watch the film a second time with the commentary and discovered why the director and producer and no doubt the writer thought it was a comedy. I think it is what people call a film noir really - nasty things happening to the cast in a plot that was far from having the ingredients of a comedy.
I enjoy a good thriller and a good comedy - but what is written on the cover of the DVD or the promo at the Theatre should give the potential customer a true indication of what the film is about. As an example 'Silver streak' (Gene Wilder and Richard Prior) was a comedy however I don't think even multiple viewings of this film would ever make me feel amused!
It's called black humor. Like when Charlie is muttering about the practicality of putting bird shot in the gun while his boss is getting up ready to kill him.
totally agree.. watch it for Cusack, and a bit of weirdness and the odd "fargo" reminescense every now and then but otherwise, the movie dragged its feed, and your remark that it"didnt have teeth" is brilliant.. I was asking myself "what does the movie want" a few times, but it was mildly entertaining.
I adore John Cusack and there was a time when I thought he could do no wrong. That, of course, can never be true of any working actor - there are only so many great scripts at any one time, only so many perfect matches between actors, directors, and all the people who make a film, and only so much money to throw at each one. That said...
There's something "off" about Cusack and Billy Bob Thornton onscreen, and I don't mean that in an entertaining way. They wasted their talents, as did Cate Blanchett, in "Pushing Tin" and the same kind of thing happens here. The script tries too hard - which makes me appreciate even more how often the Coen brothers get it right in most of their films - and for some reason neither actor seems genuinely engaged with the other. I got the distinct feeling they were each just picking up a paycheck on their way to some future project they'd like more.
Unlike some posters here I just don't see the connections to better films such as "Fargo". The setting is grungy rather than realistic, every scene is lit as depressingly as can be, and the constant vulgarity is assualtive and illustrates nothing about the characters. To sit through those negatives you'd at least hope for something or someone you could get behind and root for, or at least a killer script, but that never really happens either. Its a forgettable and vaguely nasty little timewaster. Cusack and Thornton are so interesting individually, maybe they should just avoid each other onscreen. Or if they're offered roles in the same movie in future, maybe they should each ask someone who loves them to give them an honest opinion.
i dont think overtoned with as you call it 'boy humour'... i liked it a lot actually -- i hate Sarah Beth though, she is a **** and a coldhearted woman who enjoys ******* with peoples emotions...