It got a bunch of crappy reviews from know-it-all critics, but I really liked it. It was a servicable thriller, and it has the type of premise that I really like -- a regular joe makes a mistake. Then the mistake turns out to be a life-threatening disaster, and he can't get anyone else to help him because if he does, his secret will be let out and he'll be destroyed. So he has to try an extricate himself from the big mess.
Think Fatal Attraction. Guy has a simple affair. Then the woman turns out to be a pyscho and stalks him. He can't get any help because he has to keep it secret from his wife. It gets worse and worse until the conclusion.
I was interested in the story the whole way, though I don't think Jennifer Aniston was well-cast in this role. She's not a seductress. A little too innocent, not quite sexy enough, and a little long in the tooth for this role.
I think what really hurts this movie in the eyes of the critics is that we've seen so many con artist thrillers in the last 15 years, we already know the twist. I go into every movie that is based on con artists knowing that the guys best friend/partner is setting up our hero and the the ultimate con will usually be on him. It's either one, the other, or usually both. So immediately I say to myself, "self, Jennifer Aniston is on on it. She's setting him up. She's married to the bad guy."
I don't think it's the plot's fault that this is the case. If you think about the sting these crooks are trying to pull, it only makes sense. The problem is that we've seen so many movies that involve con artists that we know there are no innocent players involved. If this came out 15 years ago, it probably would have gotten good reviews. Now, though, these smug film critics are talking about how obvious the plot twists are. As if they could construct anything better.
I give this film a thumb's up. I was entertained throughout (pretty rare for me).
.
.
Think Fatal Attraction. Guy has a simple affair. Then the woman turns out to be a pyscho and stalks him. He can't get any help because he has to keep it secret from his wife. It gets worse and worse until the conclusion.
I was interested in the story the whole way, though I don't think Jennifer Aniston was well-cast in this role. She's not a seductress. A little too innocent, not quite sexy enough, and a little long in the tooth for this role.
I think what really hurts this movie in the eyes of the critics is that we've seen so many con artist thrillers in the last 15 years, we already know the twist. I go into every movie that is based on con artists knowing that the guys best friend/partner is setting up our hero and the the ultimate con will usually be on him. It's either one, the other, or usually both. So immediately I say to myself, "self, Jennifer Aniston is on on it. She's setting him up. She's married to the bad guy."
I don't think it's the plot's fault that this is the case. If you think about the sting these crooks are trying to pull, it only makes sense. The problem is that we've seen so many movies that involve con artists that we know there are no innocent players involved. If this came out 15 years ago, it probably would have gotten good reviews. Now, though, these smug film critics are talking about how obvious the plot twists are. As if they could construct anything better.
I give this film a thumb's up. I was entertained throughout (pretty rare for me).
.
.
Comment