I decided to watch that movie because I am Greek and wanted to see how would Sakis act in an American movie. I would not spend time watching something like that if it was not for him. You see, he is just a pop singer and I was really curious to see how he would do.
I can't say I was impressed. He is not an actual actor and the role required a lot! It had to be someone professional for this role. I think that Tom Cruise would be great. I am trying to imagine him like he was acting in "Collateral". Now that would be accepted acting. Playing a serial killer isn't easy. You must make your audience feel you are always in control and know what you do or you fail as a bad guy. Sakis was a failure because he was acting stupidly cool, not scary or i-mean-what-i-say cool. Many times it felt like he was an amateur felon and things went good for him just because he was lucky. But I can excuse him because, as I said, he is an amateur actor.
Sakis was bad but the worst actor in that movie was Martin Donovan. That was not a victim. Someone from the audience could show more emotions and would react better in almost all scenes compared to him. He was REALLY bad. So cold blooded and non emotional in the whole movie, like nothing really happened and was forced to act like that. That would be good acting if someone robbed him 500 bucks and he was upset, not if someone did what Abner was doing to him. Even Kieffer Sutherland would have played that role better than Donovan. That was unforgivable acting.
The flow of the movie was slow. (I don't know if that is the right expression, I mean the way things happen and the story unfolds). It was like there was nothing interesting to say so they were showing boring stuff to fill time. I think that there could be some nice action scenes. The story could justify anything going as bad as possible. Scenes that could have lasted 10 minutes made to last less that 3. For example that man is hitting someone in the donut place. Make that last. Give it some suspense. You end it so quickly just with a punch? What?? I could imagine so many things that could happen and I am not a writer or a director! Instead of good action you give as boring scenes with a victim that does not even react like one, not a fighter but a pathetic person not doing anything to get out of the bad situation, just waiting to see what's next.
Things that I liked is Cristina Dohmen (Amy) and the subversion at the end! Christina has very few shots but I think she is exceptional when she is supposed to act good! Also know that everything you see happens for a reason and the reason is REALLY not obvious. If you are a subversion lover and do not have something better to watch, you should watch that movie. Thats why its 6 stars from me anyway. If it was not for that it would have been a 2.
I can't say I was impressed. He is not an actual actor and the role required a lot! It had to be someone professional for this role. I think that Tom Cruise would be great. I am trying to imagine him like he was acting in "Collateral". Now that would be accepted acting. Playing a serial killer isn't easy. You must make your audience feel you are always in control and know what you do or you fail as a bad guy. Sakis was a failure because he was acting stupidly cool, not scary or i-mean-what-i-say cool. Many times it felt like he was an amateur felon and things went good for him just because he was lucky. But I can excuse him because, as I said, he is an amateur actor.
Sakis was bad but the worst actor in that movie was Martin Donovan. That was not a victim. Someone from the audience could show more emotions and would react better in almost all scenes compared to him. He was REALLY bad. So cold blooded and non emotional in the whole movie, like nothing really happened and was forced to act like that. That would be good acting if someone robbed him 500 bucks and he was upset, not if someone did what Abner was doing to him. Even Kieffer Sutherland would have played that role better than Donovan. That was unforgivable acting.
The flow of the movie was slow. (I don't know if that is the right expression, I mean the way things happen and the story unfolds). It was like there was nothing interesting to say so they were showing boring stuff to fill time. I think that there could be some nice action scenes. The story could justify anything going as bad as possible. Scenes that could have lasted 10 minutes made to last less that 3. For example that man is hitting someone in the donut place. Make that last. Give it some suspense. You end it so quickly just with a punch? What?? I could imagine so many things that could happen and I am not a writer or a director! Instead of good action you give as boring scenes with a victim that does not even react like one, not a fighter but a pathetic person not doing anything to get out of the bad situation, just waiting to see what's next.
Things that I liked is Cristina Dohmen (Amy) and the subversion at the end! Christina has very few shots but I think she is exceptional when she is supposed to act good! Also know that everything you see happens for a reason and the reason is REALLY not obvious. If you are a subversion lover and do not have something better to watch, you should watch that movie. Thats why its 6 stars from me anyway. If it was not for that it would have been a 2.