Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

Good movie but grossly overrated

Brilliant and touching

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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?

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.

Many folks seem to hate this item. I really don't understand why. OK, I agree that there are many clichés in it; for instance John Cusack - as the good American who struggles to save him and his son against the evil ones. Speaking of the evil guys, I find Morgen Freeman exquisite as the villain. This is a very unusual character for him, admit it, for God's sake. He plays here a hired gunman, a professional killer, a "shadow" mercenary working for the Government, erasing people "against progress", as he says in the movie...he leads a bunch of guys like him who have a contract on a scientist who may jeopardize the Government plans. Against progress...I won't tell the whole story, but it is surprising on many points. Believe me. Morgan Freeman is a bad guy, OK; but after the first half film, he becomes not so bad to the audience, especially in his relations with Cusack and his son. A cliché, I agree. But the very surprise, the one for which I am so amazed, is in the last thirty seconds of the film, where you are suddenly awareSPOOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERSthat Freeman will remain a cold, mechanical killing machine, despite all you saw about him and his help and protection for the real hero of the film: John Cusack. When he protected him against his own - Freeman's - fellow deadly companions.

This film was just about passable. I gave it 4/10 (2*) for the scenery it had on offer, because other than that the film was damn right ugly. The script/dialogue - terrible, the acting- abysmal, the characterisation - non-existent. Do not watch this film unless you like hiking, as that seems to be the only area where the makers of this film intended to reflect something credibly. The actual assassin/contract killer business is represented very limply indeed and is hardly the cut throat, excited world one might think it to be (Go check out 'Wanted' instead, which is also about assassins and stars Morgan Freeman, but unlike this film is actually good) - very uninspiring. As for the main two actors, who's involvement had made me interested in this film in the first place, well...Morgan Freeman just about manages to save his reputation in spite of the weakly written script he is evidently working from and Cusacks not too bad, if a little stuck in his stereotypical I'm a former policemen/Joe Bloggs hero role. As for the rest of the cast, like I said before - blo*dy awful. So, to conclude, would I recommend this film - simply put - no way. I've just put my copy in the trash - as that's the only place this film belongs.