Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

jamiemitchelldesign I had to actually look up this movie online to check if it was really Tom Jane and John Cusack I was watching, both are a little older and somewhat thinner.Both these actors have been around a long time and well respected.Yet in this film, Jane and Cusack were not their usually selves, albeit in a good way, it's like they let go of Hollywood, fame and fortune to just do what they wanted to do and have a hell of a lot of fun in the process.Drive Hard is a stupid, corny Aussie flick and I loved every single moment of it. Tom Jane looks as clueless as Jeff Daniels in Dumber and Dumber, and John Cusack, well he just look genuinely off the renovations.Bother actors performed wonderfully, the film is somewhat B grade, the Aussie accents are terrible.There are a few cool Muscle cars, some unstable Bikies, a service station attendant with an itchy trigger finger, and completely psychotic grandma, not to mention a few egotistic cops thrown into the mix.Good job guys for going out on a limb to make something different regardless of what others think.I really enjoyed this film and haven't laughed that hard for some time.

Mr-Fusion At present, "Drive Hard" has a 4.5/10 rating on IMDb and a 1-star Netflix rating, which will probably leave you with visions of a trainwreck. Best case scenario, it's an entertaining one (like "Drive Angry"). But this is not in that league."Collateral" came to mind when Jane and Cusack psycho analyze each other in the car, but that's not a flattering comparison. Any actual characterization is buried under their tired buddy-comedy/drama/action . . . thing. The car chases have no tension, the leads share zero chemistry and they both look like they want to be far away from this (Cusack especially). The best I can say about this is "Eh, I've seen worse", but what kind of compliment is that? It's really not all that bad, I guess, just tepid and ineffectual.4/10

breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com 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.

Simon Daly 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?