Drive Hard (2014) User Reviews

Where did the $12 million go?

[jairbryant · 3/10 · 1 June 2014]

(Slight spoiler alert)

There are too many flaws in this movie to list. But I'll try:

• The crash scene of the Nissan Pathfinder was very obviously not the same car. Solution: Use the same wheels at least.

• The police used VT Commodores and BA Falcons that Gold Coast police stopped using at least four years ago. Solution: hire FG falcons and VF Commodores, order some magnetic police graphics to stick on the hire cars.

• Peter was shifting that automatic Getz too much. Solution: get a manual to cause a more 'dramatic' or 'rushed' effect.

• Australian Federal Police do not drive Mitsubishi Challengers. Solution: hire a VF senator or caprice.

• Pistols are much harder to own in Australia, the owners are required to attend a certain amount of meetings each year (depending on the state) and far less people own pistols than rifles and shotguns. Solution: let people have shotguns and lever action rifles. (Yes I know criminals can get their hands on pistols easier but the old lady? I mean come on).

• An XA GT coupe in fully restored condition should not have an overheating problem while traveling over 60 kph in weather cooler than 27°C. Solution: have it run out of fuel instead.

• Dropping a shotgun with the stock removed could never cause it to discharge a shell. Any type of gun is completely safe as long as that trigger is not pulled (there are some extreme circumstances but a 500 mm drop is not on of them). Solution: Have Peter kill the man accidentally.

• There is absolutely no way that Ford Mustang (even though it was a 351) could beat an assumed Harley Davidson v-twin. Solution: have the motorcyclists have obstacles to navigate or have the mustang go off road a bit to shake them off.

As you can see there are flaws, to me they are big flaws. There may be some errors in my findings but none as bad as this movie. There are more holes in the story but too insignificant for me to be bothered listing them.

It surprised me that Drive Hard made it past the revision board. It is hard to believe that this movie had a $12 million budget.

All in all, this movie is not worth watching and I do not like it. Great theory but the execution was terrible.

Not anywhere close to average,...lots of misfires

[breakdownthatfilm-blogspot-com · 3/10 · 27 December 2014]

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.

The best part of this movie is the dialog and interaction between Cusack and Jane. The action sequences are repetitive & generic

[cosmo_tiger · 5/10 · 8 October 2014]

"You didn't hire me, you kidnapped me." Peter Roberts (Jane) is a former race car driver who gave up his dream because his new wife didn't like it. He now spends his days giving driving lessons to teenagers. When Simon Keller (Cusack) shows up for a lesson Roberts isn't excited about the way he drives and takes the keys. When they stop at a bank so Keller can get money to pay he runs out with cops after him and tells Roberts to drive. Now Roberts is wanted has an accomplice but Keller says he will be able to make sure Roberts goes free but he has to help first. Going in I was thinking (probably like you) a movie with Cusack and Jane, woo hoo. Going off that expectation I was disappointed. The main problem with this movie is that is isn't consistent at all. Some parts are very exciting and entertaining while others are so slow moving I found my mind wandering. Surprisingly the best part of this movie is the dialog and interaction between Cusack and Jane. All of the action sequences are repetitive and generic. For a movie that talks about car racing there is really only one chase and it's not a very good one at all. There really isn't a whole lot else to say about this one. Overall, the reason to watch is the interaction between Cusack and Jane. It's actually almost better to just skip to those scenes and skip the rest of the movie. I was very disappointed with this. I give it a C.

I hope Mr Cusack received a large cheque...

[rurquhart-2 · 1/10 · 30 May 2014]

..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.

Horrible!

[casinoslotguy · 1/10 · 31 May 2014]

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..

Average, but worth watching.

[gary-storm · 5/10 · 11 June 2014]

Firstly, the good: Cusack and Jane were excellent in this. Natural and witty. The premise is good, and the movie just about keeps you watching (though you're not sure why, it's probably the interaction between Cusack and Jane).

The bad: Most of the other actors are awful. With the exception of the little girl (daughter), the lady staff-member (who 'loves' Jane), the old crazy lady and the crooked cop.... most others seem to be total amateurs (or not even actors but friends roped in).

There is one good car chase sequence... the rest are crap (not that there are many). With the bikies is an especially stupid sequence. No amount of camera angles can save it.... hardly any tension or crashes at all... I guess they couldn't afford stunts.

The script. Just. Not. Very. Good. Thank God Cusack and Jane were such good actors and so witty (probably mostly ad-lib), otherwise you wouldn't want to watch much of this. As it is, they are the reason I watched this to the end.

The film just seems like a b-grade movie which they tried to make into a decent one with two great actors, but not even Cusack and Jane could rescue this.

Caning the Gold Coast

[Prismark10 · 4/10 · 26 February 2015]

Peter Roberts (Thomas Jane) is a former racing car driver who moved to Australia for his new wife as she regarded racing as dangerous and now makes a living as a driving instructor.

Simon Keller (John Cusack) shows up for a driving lesson but his motive is to get Roberts as a getaway driver, forcibly if necessary for a bank robbery which is part of a scheme to get back at an ex business associate.

Before long the police or after them, his ex business associate has sent his goons to get them, everywhere they stop, the locals try to apprehend them with guns and Roberts and Keller bicker and hatch up a plan that Keller will persuade the police that Roberts was kidnapped if he helps Keller.

The film is rather messy, very silly but somehow it keeps you entertained. There is enough knockabout humour between Thomas and Jane to keep you watching. How these two Americans end up in the Gold Coast of Australia is not a question even worth bothering with. The film chugs along in its bizarre, low budget way.

The biggest concern I have is that I hope this is not the beginning of Cusack's career as a straight to DVD actor.

What a piece of crap

[edriscoll09 · 1/10 · 31 May 2014]

Well this movie really did have potential to be great. Great location, nice back story, cool cars... but no no no no.

Let's start with the back story. A racer who is seen kissing a girl, then he's in bed with a house, wife, kid and a shitty job. How the hell did he get there? No character development at all.

Jane's life just kind of comes out of nowhere.

Enter John Cusack who plays a criminal. Again no back story yadada. Insert 10 second bank robbery where Cusack knows the code to the safe????

Now we get to the action scenes where Jane is driving the car at a dangerously fast 25mph on city streets. Talk about excitement!

Anyway as the movie progresses the cars get better but the acting gets worse. Cusack role could have been played by a high functioning autistic teenager and Jane's part could have been played by a dog. Would have made for a better movie.

Throw in some terrible chase scenes, horrible fighting and cheesy shootouts and you've got yourself a movie.

A lot of potential serves up a decent adult comedy-thrill ride

[Robert_duder · 6/10 · 14 June 2014]

Think of this in the mid-late 1980's and you would have a cult classic on your hands today. This is the sort of buddy-criminal movie you just don't see anymore. Fast cars, chases, shoot-outs, one liners, gratuitous bad language...the 80's lover in me had to at least be entertaining by this straight to video entry. It isn't brilliant by any means and it falls short in many respects but for what it is, its fun and wild and the vitally important chemistry between the leads works pretty well. This is the sort of drive-in fluff that you can sit back and enjoy. If you try to dissect it then it falls apart and you'll hate it. Its nothing more than 70's/80's era fluff and I'm okay with that. Some of the performances (especially the supporting cast) is downright cheesy and I would have expected them to use the Australian backdrop a lot more. I am a huge fan of Australian horror films but how often do we get an action type film out of there and I really would expect any good director or cinematographer to utilize the beautiful and often rugged countryside and we don't get a lot of that.

The film features two actors I've always enjoyed. I think John Cusack has built up a solid fan base and he has had some bonified huge success. The problem is that as of late he's a had a strong of straight to DVD films for some reason. Now that being said, all of those movies that I've seen have been at least okay. If I had paid to see Drive Hard in the theatre I wouldn't have disappointed. Its a tried and true popcorn type flick so why not! Cusack is decent and plays a typical role for him as a bank robber with a little edge. Its far from his best role and there is very little depth to his character but it works and his charisma is good enough to make it watchable. Thomas Jane is sort of hit and miss with roles too but I actually thought he was really good in this. He's a former race car drive who gets inadvertently recruited by Cusack and suddenly the two men are on the run together. Their back and forth banter works well and their chemistry is good. Its not amazing...its not Mel Gibson/Danny Glover but it keeps the pace going and will certainly at least make you laugh a few times. Jane is manic and excitable and fun to watch. The supporting cast are all pretty good but there is a lot of them and they sort of get buried in the process of the plot. Zoe Ventoura plays a good solid and little bit campy role as Agent Walker. I think they could have done a lot more with her role but it is what it is. Damien Garvey, Christopher Morris and Jesse Spence are all good but very underused in the film. The film makers and writers spent so much time focusing on the slapstick camaraderie of the two leads that they forget about supporting cast and the plot feels slapped together and forced sometimes. Its unfortunate because they are on to something here.

Director Brian Trenchard-Smith is not new to directing. He's been around a long time and he's done some great TV and some even better cult classics. In a less experienced director's hands this probably would have been a Grade A disaster. He holds it together very well and fortunately the charisma of both of the leads makes this at least passable and gives it a fun cult feel to it. Without our director and Cusack and Jane, this probably would have been barely even watchable. I'm still not sure about the twists and turns to the plot and even if I got any of it but I'm also quite sure that I don't care. It was fun and wild and the car chases were well shot and didn't feel like regurgitated Fast and The Furious scenes which isn't easy to do nowadays. You have to go in with low expectations because it is what it is. But if you turn your brain off, pop some popcorn and just sit back and let the zany story take hold...you might have some fun. 6.5/10

Drive Hard, Drive Bland.

[nebk · 4/10 · 3 June 2014]

Drive Hard is a small budget action thriller starring John Cusack & Thomas Jane. Jane stars as Peter Roberts, an ex-racer turned driving instructor who is kidnapped by Simon Keller played by Cusack and forced to drive him away from a bank robbery. In turn they are being pursued by the police (honest & corrupt), as well as mercenaries who work for the bank which is owned by a crime syndicate. While this sounds like an interesting premise for a movie, the end result is utterly forgettable.

There are a few good points about this movie but they are few and far in between. One is the scenery of the Gold Coast of Australia where the movie takes place. Even though Cusack and Jane are decent actors they are let down by a very weak story and too many plot holes though. There are some funny moments, but the implausible moments and the flow of the story ruin what could have been a decent film. For example:

Keller robs 9 million worth of bonds from a safe that looks like it belongs in someone's house, not a high class international bank. He also conveniently knows the combination to the safe. Then they escape with ease evading police cars and a helicopter. Keller then shoots a Jeep full of mercenaries with one bullet causing it to explode and tumble over. They then switch cars and go on a long drive making as many unnecessary stops as possible. Not exactly the actions of someone trying to make a quick getaway.

Keller also promises Roberts that he will give him 3 million dollars and make it look like he was a kidnap victim so that he would not go to jail. At the same time he lets Roberts go into a gas station market as well as a bar unaccompanied. At one point they walk into a Wine Estate pretending they are guests who arrived early at a wedding that is supposed to take place there. Then they escape together from the owner who starts shooting at them. The kidnapped actually wrestles the owner to the ground and takes her gun away from her. So how exactly that makes him look like he has been kidnapped would be a very good question to ask. Roberts in turn has numerous chances to escape but obviously does not and a sort of camaraderie develops between the kidnapper and the kidnapped with a lot of needless dialogue. There are also back stories being told about the corrupt cops being investigated by the Federal Police and why exactly Keller decided to rob a mob-owned bank in the first place, as well as how Roberts has problems in his marriage. These side stories do not contribute much to the story or the film. Basically they are there to fill in some screen time. In the end there is a shoot out as one would expect and the ending is as clichéd as it can get.

Another problem with this film is that it's starts of as more of a buddy comedy but turns into a shoot 'em up near the end. This might work for some movies but not this one. That's why I would rate this as a 4/10. Watchable if there is nothing better, but forgettable and not worth watching ever again.

just awful

[dalysimon · 16 June 2014]

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?

Warm hearted corny Aussie B grade flick

[jamiemitchelldesign · 10/10 · 22 December 2015]

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.

A perfectly solid action-comedy.

[willman85 · 7/10 · 29 September 2019]

The people who have given this such ridiculously low reviews are being too biased, and I repudiate any reviewer who does not judge this film solely by its own merits instead of their own exorbitant expectations.

The chemistry between John Cusack and Thomas Jane is great. Together they perfectly lift the script out of mediocrity, their screen personas are absolutely superb. The action sequences are well-shot. The humor is perfectly fine. The story isn't the most creative, but it is nonetheless a perfectly sound caper. Besides, it is refreshing to see such a film both set and filmed entirely in Australia. The script is not awful by any means. I was kept on the edge of my seat throughout.

The film is nothing grand or special, but it's good solid entertainment for its scale and budget.

Average Movie - Worth Watching

[shroyertour · 5/10 · 30 May 2014]

This Action-Comedy-Crime movie gave me something to do one recent afternoon, and I think it was worth the watch. I saw it before I read either of the current reviews, and thought that a middle-of-the-road review was more appropriate.

John Cusack and Thomas Jane do a good job with their characters and make the somewhat unbelievable plot more believable. Any action flick needs something to ground it, and the character development, particularly with Jane's character, does this. The female characters seem a bit stereotypical and one sided, but this actually seems to work to keep the focus on the male leads.

The action is by no means over the top, and it contains enough mild humor to qualify as a comedy. No guffaws here; just a few chuckles.

I found this a pleasant and entertaining movie, one worth watching, although I doubt I'll ever watch it again.

Absurdly bad

[sean-cronin · 1/10 · 31 August 2014]

Did you ever see a movie where the two lead actors are completely humiliated that their career has dropped to the bottom? Well, here it is. I think John Cusack actually was going to cry in some scenes. I just assumed that Thomas Jane needed drug money.

Besides the acting, the movie is incompetent on every level. Bad script, bad directing. Bad car chases. Horrible and illogical action scenes.

It isn't even bad enough to be entertaining.

Seriously, don't waste your time. Or subject anyone to this.

Just remember Cusack in Sixteen Candles, The Sure Thing, Better Off Dead, The Journey of Natty Gann, One Crazy Summer, Eight Men Out Say Anything, The Grifters, or Being John Malkovich. Those are good memories. This steaming pile is hard to get out of your head.

Just awful

[Dessler1 · 1/10 · 30 June 2015]

I have been a member of IMDb for 10 years and never written a review on here before but I needed to say something about this pile of crap.

Drive Hard was available on Sky Movies Demand and I saw Cusack and Jane attached to it so I thought that sounds cool and wondered why I had never heard of it. I love Cusack since I was a kid back in the 80s and Thomas Jane was awesome in The Punisher so I had a real shock when watching the first 5 mins (yes 5 mins) and could see why I had never heard of it. This film (if you can call it a film) was one of the worst movies (along with 'Dude Where's My Car' and 'Operation Endgame') that I've ever seen. I couldn't even finish it after watching 30 minutes, as I felt my brain was turning into mush. Seriously Cusack what were you thinking??

The acting was very bad, the script was not well written, the camera work was shoddy (some of the actors faces especially Jane looked so odd like they had skin conditions) and the comedy wasn't funny at all.

I saw the trailer straight after switching off to see how they portrayed it and it is deceiving as they put all the action in but hardly anyone speaking because the other actors could not act at all.

I watch all types of films from the classics, interesting and intelligent to the daft, silly and ridiculous and enjoy them all. I like to give movies a chance, but this was too much. If I could have given a zero I would have, but it is a 1 out of 10 for me.

Almost a near miss

[wannall · 5/10 · 2 April 2015]

I'm not exactly sure why I finished watching it. It's not quite as terrible as some of the reviews insist, but it's never much above slightly amusing. I found Thomas Jane sort of fun, with his Chris-Lambert-but-not-quite-as-strange look. He actually did a little work here and there and was pleasant. Grumblings about John Cusack's job are somewhat on the money. It occurs to me that there were really only two actual laugh-out-loud moments for me, and I' not giving them away, just in case you watch it. Too bad. It was loosely assembled from a collection of sort of funny possibilities. If you have some spare time to watch it for completeness, you won't regret it really, but that's about as much of a recommendation as I can drum up. Too bad.

Will drive you into a stupor

[Wizard-8 · 27 June 2014]

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.

Requires Post Trauma therapy for life if you watch this

[tfmiltz · 1/10 · 31 May 2014]

I rarely like to skip a scene in a movie, always giving it a chance to maybe pivot on some subtle absurdity - or even one line - that can make a movie.

This movie started off bad. I started to skip ahead just a few frames at a time, eventually, I started skipping 5 minutes at a block, then 10.

What happened on the way to the forum here?

How is it even possible? He would have taken this role.

It's a career ender for me, it doesn't help that Grand Piano just happened to be the movie I watched prior.

Please no more movies John...

Never again.

Somewhere this movie was an excuse to talk about cars.

Don't drive hard people- Drive FAR- FAR AWAY from this movie.

It is an insult to the REAL crimes that take place involving investment banks - just cook on your damned Viking grill John, and ride your muscle cars, enjoy your life- but please- do the world a favor, don't make any more movies.

Oh John

[toenail2727 · 1/10 · 19 January 2015]

The 2 reasons i watched this movie are i live on the Gold Coast Australia where this movie is set and i am a huge John Cusack fan. I have to yell John what were you thinking this movie is badly written badly directed and unfortunately full of seriously bad acting.

I think it was meant to be a action comedy film but the action is b-grade and the comedy is not funny. Don't be fooled by the cover it is terrible. Sorry 4.3 rating is about 3.3 to much.

I like to always put at least 1 positive or 1 negative about a movie i review. The only positive i can muster is thankfully it went straight to DVD.

Very entertaining

[positivoengenharia · 7/10 · 31 May 2014]

I really enjoy the movie, way to spend time with family on TV Some people(some)get to serious about funny movies, they enjoy criticizing in any detail they can. Mid budget movie sometimes overcome the expectation, then Drive Hard is the case. Love all the actors, they always perform a good show.

The story line in my opinion is focused showing off nonsense situations, which's very common in theses types of movies, and happy people like it. So if you decide it's movie time, don't miss this one out.

Grab a soda and popcorn, have a sit and enjoy the movie, just don't let some reviews lead your mind before you see it.

Not well made! 2/10

[leonblackwood · 2/10 · 14 June 2014]

Review: Man, this film was bad! I think that the director was trying to make a comedy/road movie about a racing driver who gets kidnapped and told to drive for a thief on the run, but it's totally not funny and the storyline is ridiculous. I'm usually a fan of John Cusack movies, but I think that he made this film just for the pay day. I think that the whole film is set in Australia, on the cheap, which didn't fit with the 2 American main characters who seem a bit out of place. I can understand why it went straight to DVD because it definitely wouldn't have worked on the big screen. Disappointing!

Round-Up: After watching John Cusack's excellent performance in the Butler and Paperboy, I think that he's allowed to make a couple of Boo Boo's which won't hurt his career. I'm just surprised that he agreed to do the movie after reading the weak script. The same goes for Thomas Jane who did do quite a bad Punisher but he was good in Thin Red Line & Face Off, even though they were made years ago. Anyway, this film isn't one that I will remember in a hurry.

Budget: $12million Worldwide Gross: N/A

I recommend this movie to people who are into there road movies about a man who get kidnapped to drive for a man who steal from the mob. 2/10

Very funny

[stickerjim · 8/10 · 1 June 2014]

A strange and quirky comedy set in Australia. Not sure if it is some kind of Aussie promotional piece (as it didn't feel that way at all) or not, or maybe the style of the movie is different because of some Aussie director style, but I found it refreshing. I would watch this a second time before I'd watch the embarrassingly inane Anchorman 2 a second time.

For people lacking a sense of humor, or looking for some kind of rah-rah pro-country theme(like "go USA"), they won't find this movie entertaining.

Not exactly award winning material, but very entertaining. The major characters explain their presence in the film so it's easy enough to follow. John Cusack was awesome. Just a great, simple, entertaining little comedy.

An enjoyable mix of action and laughs

[Tweekums · 7/10 · 30 November 2017]

Peter Roberts is an American, former race car driver who is now working as a driving instructor in Australia's Gold Coast where he lives with his wife and daughter. His life is about to be turned upside down when fellow American Simon Keller turns up to take a lesson. Keller asks to stop at the bank on the way back to get money to pay for the lesson… Roberts is shocked when Keller runs back while being shot at; he has robbed the bank! It turns out it isn't an ordinary bank; he has taken nine million dollars in bearer bonds that were part of a money laundering scheme. Senior local police are in the pocket of the crooks and call off the police chase so soon Roberts and Keller find themselves being shot at by mercenaries armed with automatic weapons. They manage to switch cars and get away… although in Roberts's case he is only sticking with Keller because he is being threatened. As they travel north they run into various dangers before ultimately having to confront the villains who want their bonds back.

When I started watching this film I knew nothing about it but assumed it would be an action packed film full of car chases and explosions; while it does include both it is much a comedy as an action film. It starts fairly well; Keller's driving lesson was amusing and the following chase is fairly exciting. Roberts and Keller are fun characters even if the latter is a criminal he is somewhat sympathetic as the people he stole from are worse. They have a decent chemistry that develops over the course of the film… one can't expect real chemistry given the hostage/kidnapper relationship. Thomas Jane and John Cusack are solid in these roles. There are plenty of good laughs although some are rather dark… a man who tries to stop them accidentally shoots himself with very messy results! The subplot involving the corrupt police is somewhat superfluous; our protagonists don't even know corrupt cops are involved let alone meet them. Overall this might not be a classic but it is rather fun and the Australia setting makes a refreshing change from the US or Europe.

Sets a new low

[godfreygordon · 1/10 · 14 August 2016]

Either the director was absent for the whole movie or had been taken ill and there was a stand in 9 year old child in the directors chair. There was no hint of any chemistry between the main stars and I doubt if there was a single improvement retake in the whole movie. "Springtime for Hitler" springs to mind as one thinks of the unlikely possibility of a deliberate failure agenda by this movie's makers. Cusack seemed to be in a different movie the whole time, acting away on his own as if he was not actually there, but had been put there post production. The stunts and driving scenes for what they were worth were not edited into the movie well. Twelve million dollars spent on what? The movie has all the panache of an amateur film maker's holiday movie. I have nothing to praise about the character interpretation by Thomas Jane, who seemed to only have two facial expressions, laughing and not laughing.