Drive Hard

Hostage comedies are rare movies. There are a handful that have a name for themselves, but very few are memorable in the vein of the action genre. It's questionable to why these particular match-ups don't work. Possibly incorrect casting? Maybe a very loose script? I don't know. However, it is certain that this production just didn't have what it took to be anything out of the ordinary. Other than some minor elements that make this viewing less than barely passable, the rest of it just doesn't feel like it's worth the time. This movie actually is somewhat parallel to that of Stand Off (2011) starring Brendan Fraser.

Not only are main leads Thomas Jane and John Cusack stuck in a foreign country and surrounded by foreign actors (just like Fraser) but so is the situation. Both are hostage situations, except Fraser's was in a single building, this film involves motion. After having a successful career in sports racing, currently ex-racer Peter Roberts (Thomas Jane) settles down with his wife and kid in Australia. There he makes a mediocre living of reliving his past by working as a driving instructor. There, Roberts bumps into Simon Keller (John Cusack), a thief who's supposedly so good at his job, no one has been able to catch him. However, Roberts doesn't realize this until Keller robs one of the biggest banks in the country and is offered a chance to take some of the robbed money. It's not the worst of plot setups but the all around execution is meager by comparison.

One of the biggest issues and downright obvious flaws is John Cusack and Thomas Jane's chemistry. In a way, it feels as if both actors are not acknowledging their co-stars personality, therefore not registering what types of responses they should answer with to make the conversation funny. Instead a lot of the interplay doesn't connect with its audience. Occasionally, the leads may have one or two humorous exchanges but it's very infrequent. Thomas Jane plays his character as if he's clueless; most likely due to Jane having very few comedic roles under his belt. Jane is funnier when he plays his character deadpan,...which is exactly how John Cusack plays it up. Cusack also looks like he enjoyed playing his character as some lazy antihero. Again though, nothing that was really special.

The only other redeeming element to this production is the fact that the rest of the cast is Australian,..which provides the audience with a different listening experience. Mostly this credit belongs to actors Zoe Ventoura, Christopher Morris and Damien Garvey. Other than that, every other character is forgettable, yet there are still other additional characters added in the film for no reason. An example of this is Peter Roberts' daughter. The story could've just been written for Roberts and his wife - excluding his annoying daughter. As for anything else, nothing is very promising. Along with its hit and miss tone provided by the main actors' antics, the subplots here are too many to care about. Writers Chad and Evan Law pack the screenplay with different characters and motivations that not only make it feel bloated but also cliché. What a surprise that someone's crooked as an undercover thief. Been there done that.

It's no wonder that the film's direction wasn't any better, considering the man directing it was Brian Trenchard-Smith. This is the same guy behind Leprechaun 3 (1995) and Leprechaun 4: In Space (1996),...that should say enough. And with below average directing comes below average music, action and camera-work (also with weird job placement). Tony O'Loughlan who normally works on visual effects was designated cinematographer and it is flat as can be. There are some wide shots of what is supposed Australian landscape but it's kind of hard to tell. The special effects are almost non-existent and when they are, they look mediocre. Not cheap,…just mediocre.

Bryce Jacobs' score wasn't impressive either. Much of the instruments used were guitars involving rock tunes. If Jacobs was looking for rock, he should've went to composer David Sardy for inspiration. With scores like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2012) and Zombieland (2009), Sardy could've helped Jacobs at least make one hard knuckled composition. Occasionally Jacobs will resort to a reoccurring electronic theme for the chase scenes, which are kind of toe tapping but is also easily forgettable. Making matters worse is that the action scenes are painfully boring. Quick edits and constant shootouts do not constitute as acceptable action sequences for a plot that involves driving. For the whole running time, only one car flips,...one. There was certainly more that could've been done to improve the quality here; but no one saw a need I guess.

With an awkwardly written tone, half inspired music, flat camera-work and dull action, Thomas Jane and John Cusack barely salvage what's left of this jumbled mess of a movie. The supporting Australian actors are interesting to watch along with the two leads but it's hardly adequate to entertain many viewers.

Seriously bad performances. I am guessing the director was asleep or had specified clauses in each of the actors contracts that they could not rehearse and were only allowed one take for each scene.

Production standards date back beyond Mad Max low budget cheapies and the script was just awful. This is a genuine rotten tomato. I believe it fails on every level. I am surprised he can command A list actors.

Who pays Brian Trenchard Smith this kind of money; because he comes across as definitely lacking. And I am guessing after this piece of detritus, very few would be likely to waste $12 mil on this kind of embarrassment again.

Unless its like some kind of money laundering scam?

Poor John Cusack. Not only is he fading from appearing in major Hollywood movies, he had to go all the way to Australia to work on this direct to DVD effort. I wonder why he signed on, since he is so grossly miscast here, not the least bit convincing as a bank robber with a crafty scheme. His co-star Thomas Jane isn't that much better, namely because he fails to win sympathy for his character despite being an innocent man forced into a complicated situation. Though some blame for that has to go to the writing, which is also guilty for churning up very familiar situations and dialogue - there's little freshness here. Director Brian Trenchard Smith (who also co-wrote the sorry screenplay) doesn't add any spark seated behind the camera - the little action there is is not the least bit exciting, and the feel of the entire enterprise often comes across as one from a television show. This is one DULL movie. The best I can say for this movie is that it's better than the Ethan Hawke movie "Getaway" - but not by much.

Has John Cusack jumped the shark? is this the best movie he can get into now? Same for Thomas Jane...The movie is a cheap version of "Getaway". The budget on this film was 12m which is probably why the movie was so AWFUL

I think this was John Cusack and Thomas Jane helping a grade school student with a class project. The editing is terrible, you can clearing see shots where John or Thomas is sitting in the car on the reverse side then it switches back. You can also, clearly see the stunt drivers face multiple times throughout the movie. And the acting, i don't even want to think about that...no words can explain what that was they were doing, because it wasn't acting..

..I really do.

This is nothing more than a poorly conceived and executed advertisement for the Queensland Gold Coast hinterland. The kind of movie where the action (such as it is) limps from one rube-magnet tourist trap to the next, with the camera dwelling jarringly on the signage at each new location along the way.

I can't think of a single reason to recommend this film - but plenty to recommend against it. Fans of Mr Cusack or Mr Jane will descend quickly from confusion, to dismay, to disgust as they realise the dross the two have allowed themselves to be party to. The endless succession of car chases is unimaginative and unmoving. The performances so lifeless the cast may as well have been reciting directly from the page.

The most interesting thing about this movie is its utter, utter, utter absence of wit, style or inspiration. It will leave you genuinely searching, grasping, for reasons why a group of adults with money would possibly choose to produce something like this - something so inanely artless. My god, if you're going to take the effort to get out of bed and point a camera at something, why (how!) would you not come up with something more satisfying - something more worthy of being put before a paying audience?

I really need to take a shower. This was not just forgettable - it was depressing. Beyond pointless.