Michael Ledo
Major Frank Carden (Morgan Freeman) is the leader of a group of well paid hitmen. His job takes his to Washington state. Through a series of events, his trip is interrupted and rescue attempt is botched.Ray Keene (John Cusack) is going camping with his son (Jamie Anderson) for a much needed bonding trip. Playing the good Samaritan, Ray gets caught in the middle of the events, finding himself on the run with a handcuffed Morgan being followed by heavily armed bad guys who are being tracked by the good guys...but the bad guys have never seen a John Cusack film and don't know what a school teacher, wanting to bond with his son, is capable of doing.The acting was good, even if the plot was weak. The film has a twist, but nothing to write home about. Might work for an action flick rental. Not on my keeper shelf.Parental Guide: Couple of rare F-bombs, no sex, rear nudity (Megan "cute tush" Dodds)
elizrug
For a movie made in this century it sure seemed older. The "special" effects like the rain, the landscape and nighttime scenery were worse than most movies filmed in the 70s. I mean, for the night scenes they used a filter to make it seem dark, and ended up giving Morgan Freeman purple hair.As for the plot. Well. I can kind of understand how maybe, possibly, the father would be afraid to let this guy go, but there is no way the father would have shot a man in the back if he tried to walk away, so Morgan Freeman's character could have walked off easily when they were by the river. Then, when they were descending the rock face (WTH) he could have climbed back up. How did Freeman even think doing a movie like this was a good idea?
Sherazade
I liked the cast, the script was decent enough, the little kid in the film wasn't your typical annoying stereotypical Hollywood kid in a flick type kid, his essaying of the role was quite nuanced. I think it was the mood, pace, setting and filming technique that made it all just seem like either a made-for-TV movie or a straight-to-DVD release.Morgan Freeman plays an expert contract killer who has been hired for a job but gets double-crossed along the way. John Cusack plays the retired police officer trying to bond with his son while on a camping trip but ends up apprehending and attempting to bring Freeman's character in before he carries out his assignment.
elshikh4
This is a good thriller. I don't know why the hate, or the direct-to-video release? First things first, there is a script to appreciate. It's written by (Stephen Katz), who is an experienced action and thriller writer. His career contains writing episodes of TV shows like (Hart to Hart, Tales of the Gold Monkey, Magnum, P.I., Knight Rider, Hunter, and The A-Team). In (The Contract) he evokes (3:10 to Yuma), the western classic, with similar characters and storyline. In a way, I may see it as a better remake with adding many remarkable points along the way such as : being modern, the matter of pursuing the hit-man by his crew while using high tech, one of this crew plans secretly to kill him, plus the mysterious security manager who works for obscure agenda, and the tincture of the political satire with hiring assassins for higher goals then getting rid of them for another higher goals, or so they say. Then, a climax concerning an assassination. I liked all of that. The second top element around was (Morgan Freeman). He was the boss with his charisma, vitality, and kindness under the evil surface. Watch him doing his action scenes perfectly, despite that he was 70-year-old (I was yelling sometimes "You're the man Freeman !). (Jonathan Hyde) proved that he can be someone else (Richey Rich)'s butler; so after being sophisticated with dark suit, he's now sophisticated with dark side. The relief was well-made with 2 hick cops. The numbered fistfights were very well choreographed and executed. The cinematography was beautiful with nice carders and wild locations. And the direction had its moments; I loved the sequence of breaking into the cottage at all blue lighting. The thing is, some points disappoint this movie as solid enjoyable thriller.The lead undertakes leading that dangerous prisoner to the police, because the latter told him earlier "you can't do it" ??! Why the lead wasn't made as someone who lost his job as a cop because one prisoner escaped from him once? Or maybe he lost his wife by the hands of a loose criminal. Any of that could have explained the lead's eagerness to do the job as a man who avenges his past or his wife. But alas. He didn't even have that problem where his son doesn't see him as a hero or something ! The character of the girl looked so inserted; for having a girl around, for a naked scene, for a possible love interest for the widower lead (especially when it's made as someone who has issues with her boyfriend, not suffering much after his murder). Well, generally, how obvious !! I read that the movie at some point ran out of money to an extent where director (Bruce Beresford) was forced to use his own money to complete the production; this shows at the climax. There is something hasty and poor about it. Sure the movie needed hotter action zenith (annoying p.s : How come all of that action is taking place around the funeral and nobody noticed?). Then, the warning of (Freeman)'s character to the security manager before the end; basically I want to know; what could be exactly the problems that that lady would cause to the lead and his son ?! And frankly, despite doing his best effort, (John Cusack) is always a shortcoming to me, with weak charisma and performance that lacks the power to convince.No doubt it's watchable and tense. The script, the direction and (Freeman) provide such a good "short" time, knowing that it runs for just 85 minutes. True that in terms of writing it was more interesting and complicated than (3:10 to Yuma), but lost some depth and fair climax. Some touches here and there could have made it longer and better though. So while being potentially more advanced than (3:10 to Yuma), it arrives late, where nearly everybody have taken the first train !However, and despite anything, I give it 7 out of 10. While movies like (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest), (Crank), (The Da Vinci Code), and (Casino Royale) are all produced in the same year, having – unlike (The Contract) – cinematic releases, more success and sequels, I see that (The Contract) beats them all.
