He's personally one of my favorite actors but he was not the driving force of the previous film. The best laughs and moments came from the rest of the cast. Cusack's character helped to level things out and have a SLIGHT sensitive side. I'm sure Adam Scott can fill that role just fine and still have an awesome film.
shareI liked the first film but clearly the second will be a piece a *beep*
shareTo be honest, I didn't know he was missing until I read your comment. I'd gone through the whole trailer w/o realizing he wasn't in it. So, given that fact, I think I'll enjoy it just fine.
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means
for me, cusack and robinson carried the first film. cusack provided a nostalgic impression to the film (not gonna lie; after watching the first HTTM, I went on a John Cusack 80s bender), while robinson's quirky and lively approach to the story provided a screwball comedy feel. corddry can be funny, but he tries way too hard sometimes, kind of like Will Ferrell. I just watched the trailer to the sequel and it looks like dogsh!t.
shareI agree, I really wish Cusack was coming back and he did allow the scenes to be more fluid, or go from point A to point B as well as completing the onscreen ambiance with the rest of the cast but I think the movie should be find with the current cast although I'm not expecting it to be anywhere as good as the first. Adam Scott is a solid comedian/actor and while I don't really see him as a perfect replacement for Cusack, I think he'll do good enough. Also, to me, Corddry and Duke stole the show in the first one and I thought they had some of the funniest parts overall.
shareHe was asked on Twitter if he was gonna be in the 2nd one and he said he wasn't asked to come back for it. He didn't turn it down, they just didn't want him in it.
shareIt is odd Cusack won't do the sequel. This will be a guilty pleasure movie. It will do ok in the theaters but do much better in the post theater market.
I just rewatched the first one and Cusack is easily has the least memorable of the scenes. He's a great actor, but the sequel can easily survive without him.
shareWhen even John Cusack won't do your movie at this point, it's a bad sign.
shareI hate to say this, but Cusack wasn't very good in the first film. His lines were mumbled and he seemed to be struggling to exude some kind of unnatural enthusiasm. Comedy is not his strong suit. I don't know what his strong suit is -- maybe drama, or political activism, or '80s teen films, but it's definitely not comedy. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but I think it was the right decision to replace him with a more comedy-oriented cast member (i.e. Scott).
share