It's true that Paul Maso's acting is terrible, and that Crawley's is pretty convincing. Or maybe it's how good Crawley is that makes Maso's performance so bad.
I am not as impressed by the "surprise ending that explains everything" as others have apparently been. The surprise ending really explains nothing about Hugo's bizarre behavior throughout. If he's just a hired hitman, why does he toy with and torment Robert so? If the goal was to kill Robert, almost any approach to it would've been better. I realize the backstory is supposed to be mysterious, but it's completely opaque. And nothing in the story or backstory makes it believable that Robert is a budding murderer.
If Maso had sought additional acting talent to allow himself to focus his attention and energies into directing, this likely would've been a much stronger effort.
I am not as impressed by the "surprise ending that explains everything" as others have apparently been. The surprise ending really explains nothing about Hugo's bizarre behavior throughout. If he's just a hired hitman, why does he toy with and torment Robert so? If the goal was to kill Robert, almost any approach to it would've been better. I realize the backstory is supposed to be mysterious, but it's completely opaque. And nothing in the story or backstory makes it believable that Robert is a budding murderer.
If Maso had sought additional acting talent to allow himself to focus his attention and energies into directing, this likely would've been a much stronger effort.