I think Clayne Clawford is an unlikable actor--I don't like the way he looks, and I don't like his personality. I also didn't enjoy his character, John Taylor, who I think the audience is supposed to have some sympathy for (for example, we find out that he loves his girlfriend and steals money for her operation--please!). They could have done much better with a different actor and an improved character.
shareI completely agree with you. My very first thought when I turned it on was, "Eww, who is this guy?" Blech, not likable at all. There's something about his looks that is like nails on a chalkboard for me, but I'm not sure exactly what it is; improving his character's personality/background in this might not have helped very much--at least for me.
This definitely needed a different "protagonist."
I humbly disagree. The fact that he looks like a little rat with curly hair adds color to his scumbag character. If he was attractive or respectable by societies standards, I would find him inapplicable for the role. But he isn't! I don't have sympathy for him myself, because he lied to get into the house, he stole money, etc. Other than that, he was hilarious and really tied the movie together -- especially the pool scene after he gets drugged up. That always made me laugh.
The only thing I found unrealistic is him beating Warwick at chess. Come on! Really?
I agree. There's just something about his looks that I don't care for. Whatever it is, Ray Liotta has the same look about him and, to my tastes, both are quite unappealing.
shareI guess it's like Hard Candy where they try to blue the lines between victim and victimizer. I think the writers were actually trying to make us root for Warwick.How could we not, with John being such an unlikable *beep* compared to someone who seemed charming and kind. Plus, breaking into a man's house and treating him that way wasn't smart. He deserved allot of what he got.
share