Poor old Ben Affleck's acting has always been subject to a hefty amount of scorn. Unfortunately, he does himself no favours here. Often sounding like a punch drunk stroke victim, Affleck's performance is so wooden, slow and plain you will drift off half way through. Poor old Ben, the same can be said of his direction too...
The film is littered with basic, fundamental film making flaws. The pacing is tired and stale, drifting from one awkward conversation to another. At no point was I convinced Hall's character would EVER be interested in Affleck's slow talking, world weary criminal, but then we aren't really told a great deal about her. Rebecca Hall struggles to make a role devoid of any character come to life. However, Jeremy Renner's character is intimidating and well played (if ultimately under-utilised) and the actual hiest scenes are enjoyable. I can't think of much else positive to say.
Despite the film's generally warm critical reception, I cannot understand why anyone but uber lovers of the genre would be interested in this cliched, badly scripted, boring 'COP DRAMA' that views like it was made for television.
3/10
Rarity of raririties, I know, but I disagree with you on this one. First off, I don't understand how your liking of the heist scenes can be a negative thing - as if that somehow devalues the rest of the film. For what is essentially an action/drama, I felt it had plenty of both.
ReplyDeleteYou also make reference to the 'twist' in the movie not actually being much of a twist. I agree with you on that but actually thought that was a positive thing as oppposed to a negative. I liked how straight forward it was, and I think it's wrong to disregard this movie as 'cliché', firstly because it's not and, secondly, I'd argue that condemning something as 'cliché' has become, dare I say it - cliché - a bit like this incessant need for a mind-bending twist in a movie.
Lastly, I'd point to your comments about Affleck. It's obvious that you'd made your mind up before going in to the cinema about him (you reference your pre-conception of him a few times) and so were probably never going to like his performance (although I'd agree it was nothing special - although not bad). However, I can't help but feel that had this movie got a 55% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, or wherever you read your reviews, that would probably have led to you viewing it in a slightly more positive light.
Apart from all that, I agree with the rest of what you said! It wasn't the masterpiece that people are claiming it to me but I enjoyed it. Plus, I'm sure we can both agree that the bloke (I forget his name now) who played Affleck's boss was a joker!
Oh, and if you hadn't deciphered my pseudonym, this is Tony!
ReplyDeleteIt's nice to hear the flip side, but -
ReplyDeleteI would say that in terms of dialogue, relationships, motives and 'gangster land' themes, the film is cliche as much as there is nothing new on offer here. If I have seen all these things before, in a similar guise, then I would consider that cliche.
My reference to a twist was a joke. There is, as you say, no twist.
I didn't read a single thing about this film before I saw it, and I absolutely had not made up my mind about anything before hand. You say I reference my 'pre-conception of him a few times'. I said, once, his acting has always been subject to a hefty amount of scorn. A fair comment, I think.
Affleck's acting made me and my friend who was sitting next to me literally laugh for about three minutes at a time. While mostly fair, at times it was bloody awful, but that was just my take on it.