Bad movie creates bad acting?

I think that Cusack and Freeman did a good job with the dialogue. In the hands of lesser actors this film might have been as bad as you say it is but I think they elevated the script with their individual screen presence. And the film is very slightly tongue in cheek.

The only acting that I felt was a bit forced was the kid, but hey lets give him a break as it was his first ever acting job, so he did OK all things considered.

Overall I enjoyed the film. Seeing Cusack and Freeman work together is great!

Here's another example that comes closer to a controlled experiment: the difference between The Fugitive (original w/Harrison Ford) and the sequel (w/Wesley Snipes).

Maybe I'm the only one, but I thought the original was a terrific action-suspense film. Within the bounds of Willful Suspension of Disbelief, he was plausible as wrongly-accused Everyman, using his wits to find and expose the real murderer. His character benefitted from innate intelligence, luck, and perseverence. Tommy Lee Jones' character was refreshingly different: brisk, irreverent, no-nonsense, highly competent, and equally persistent.

The second was such a poor attempt to recapture the original lightning-in-a-bottle it even made JONES look bad. Everyone in the movie seemed to be imitating themselves, and the plot just flat sucked. I haven't looked up the "director" credit for either movie, but I just have to believe that some hack writer-director team inherited the project and weren't up to the task.

Bad movie makes for bad acting.

Laugh-a while-a you can, monkey boy