Watched this last night, and it was mostly what I expected. After a wonky beginning, it's generally a popcorn, action/date movie that's not exactly high-art. The film is not the worst thing you've ever seen - it's really just an escape, with a good production, and that's it.
Zillions of reviews say Lautner was horrible. Huh? I really think people are just jealous. He was fine and didn't overact - he was sincere, fit the role & there is little reason to be upset.
These reviews lacerating Lautner were like people destroying Paris Hilton from "House of Wax," when in actuality, she was honestly alright in that. Not a big deal. Granted, I don't have strong feelings about either performer.
With a strong budget of $30M, the film looked confident and solid by John Singleton, the film is a fairly easy watch as it goes along, & the supporting cast of admired actors (Weaver, Molina, Bello) were fine.
Singleton isn't too flashy, and might just be cashing a check... but one thing he would do is make sure that the actors would have their moments, instead of too many quick cutaways.
The story is kind of fun in the moment, but, sure it's silly when you think about it afterwards. But, mehh. It was fun. Nothing is horrendous about 'Abduction.' I saw two of the Twilight films and thought they were easy to watch as well & not really a big deal. And Lautner's disposition is somewhat similar in Abduction as he was in Twilight. I think that's alright & he fit the roles fine.
If I were to complain about anything is that ½ of the fighting looked good, but ½ wasn't that great. Secondly, the dialog was usually fine, but it could get so dull/ cliché I felt sorry for the actors.
Thirdly, the ending climax with the villain was just straight-forward; you really see it coming. It's not clever at all & it felt very '80s. Fourthly, some of the chasing sequences were good, but sometimes they could lack blood-pumping momentum. Despite the complaints, the film is still a fun adventure.
I'd read so many bad reviews of this film...that maybe my expectations were low. But honestly, the film was fine and kinda fun. Just an escape.
Zillions of reviews say Lautner was horrible. Huh? I really think people are just jealous. He was fine and didn't overact - he was sincere, fit the role & there is little reason to be upset.
These reviews lacerating Lautner were like people destroying Paris Hilton from "House of Wax," when in actuality, she was honestly alright in that. Not a big deal. Granted, I don't have strong feelings about either performer.
With a strong budget of $30M, the film looked confident and solid by John Singleton, the film is a fairly easy watch as it goes along, & the supporting cast of admired actors (Weaver, Molina, Bello) were fine.
Singleton isn't too flashy, and might just be cashing a check... but one thing he would do is make sure that the actors would have their moments, instead of too many quick cutaways.
The story is kind of fun in the moment, but, sure it's silly when you think about it afterwards. But, mehh. It was fun. Nothing is horrendous about 'Abduction.' I saw two of the Twilight films and thought they were easy to watch as well & not really a big deal. And Lautner's disposition is somewhat similar in Abduction as he was in Twilight. I think that's alright & he fit the roles fine.
If I were to complain about anything is that ½ of the fighting looked good, but ½ wasn't that great. Secondly, the dialog was usually fine, but it could get so dull/ cliché I felt sorry for the actors.
Thirdly, the ending climax with the villain was just straight-forward; you really see it coming. It's not clever at all & it felt very '80s. Fourthly, some of the chasing sequences were good, but sometimes they could lack blood-pumping momentum. Despite the complaints, the film is still a fun adventure.
I'd read so many bad reviews of this film...that maybe my expectations were low. But honestly, the film was fine and kinda fun. Just an escape.