Yes, Randall Emmett has produced a ton of flops, but also a few legendary films (Rambo, Heist, Boss Level, etc), and his only two prior writing efforts (Fortress and Fortress: Sniper's Eye) were both flops big-time, but his directorial debut prior to this film (Midnight in the Switchgrass) was actually impressive imo. In this film, his directorial rookie mistakes were very evident.
Emmett has a slew of great casting talent available to him in many of his films (he can be my wingman bar-hopping L. A. celebrity hot-spots anytime), and you can't blame De Niro or Malkovich for being in this film. They clearly did their jobs well (albeit their talents not showcased or required for their basic character's roles), but more importantly, they convinced us to watch this film because of their presence. Well played Mr. Emmett, well played.
The missed opportunity here was that although Emmett can clearly assemble great cast, he seems to have a problem putting together a proper film crew. In his second directorial credit, this film had flaws - more than Midnight in the Switchgrass, and the majorly flawed jointly-written screenplay made Emmett's directorial rookie mistakes stand out more.
The story was nothing revolutionary for this genre, but it still drew me in mainly because of Fitzgerald's and Huston's great chemistry and decent performances, although with better cast directing, they (and all other cast) could've easily elevated their performances. There were many questionable scenes (e.g. Who-why were the photos De Niro's character kept looking at on his desk, the kid in the middle of the road, etc) that needed more clarity, or just didn't need to be in the film. Many scenes felt random and switched in or out too abruptly - maybe bad editing and/or directing. There were many plot and technical issues. The pacing was horrible; the 101 min runtime felt dragged out endlessly, and the entire first half of the film could've been shown in 15-20 mins instead of taking almost an hour for the film's set up. The last act was the best, with better pacing, action and some nice twists that elevated the mostly boring first two acts. It actually answered my question "why is Malkovich even in this film", when he did what he does best, bring out his characters true identity.
In the hands of better filmmakers, this could've easily been a better film, and although not the greatest A-list headliner film, it's certainly a worthy one-time watch, flaws and all.
Emmett has a slew of great casting talent available to him in many of his films (he can be my wingman bar-hopping L. A. celebrity hot-spots anytime), and you can't blame De Niro or Malkovich for being in this film. They clearly did their jobs well (albeit their talents not showcased or required for their basic character's roles), but more importantly, they convinced us to watch this film because of their presence. Well played Mr. Emmett, well played.
The missed opportunity here was that although Emmett can clearly assemble great cast, he seems to have a problem putting together a proper film crew. In his second directorial credit, this film had flaws - more than Midnight in the Switchgrass, and the majorly flawed jointly-written screenplay made Emmett's directorial rookie mistakes stand out more.
The story was nothing revolutionary for this genre, but it still drew me in mainly because of Fitzgerald's and Huston's great chemistry and decent performances, although with better cast directing, they (and all other cast) could've easily elevated their performances. There were many questionable scenes (e.g. Who-why were the photos De Niro's character kept looking at on his desk, the kid in the middle of the road, etc) that needed more clarity, or just didn't need to be in the film. Many scenes felt random and switched in or out too abruptly - maybe bad editing and/or directing. There were many plot and technical issues. The pacing was horrible; the 101 min runtime felt dragged out endlessly, and the entire first half of the film could've been shown in 15-20 mins instead of taking almost an hour for the film's set up. The last act was the best, with better pacing, action and some nice twists that elevated the mostly boring first two acts. It actually answered my question "why is Malkovich even in this film", when he did what he does best, bring out his characters true identity.
In the hands of better filmmakers, this could've easily been a better film, and although not the greatest A-list headliner film, it's certainly a worthy one-time watch, flaws and all.