I am shocked at the rave reviews this movie received from people I respect very much. I went in with fairly high expectations and was just bored to death. I found all of the characters unconvincing, though Daniels to a lesser extent.
If the director's goal was to make Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character expressionless, he succeeded. Somehow, I don't think that was his goal. His character, Chris Pratt, communicated little inner conflict, guilt, remorse, anger.
Frankly, I think this movie was just a case of bad directing or worse casting -- Pratt was a drone, Gary, the uber-evil bankrobber, was rote, predictable and unconvincing, even Pratt's parents were virtually blank.
For me, no one in this movie effectively communicated the emotions one would think they should be feeling from scene to scene.
The script was fairly solid and as I watched the film I kept telling myself who could have bailed out this poor directorial performance.
I thought of the following ...
DiCaprio as Chris Pratt (of course, they probably could not afford him) Liam Neasom in a cameo as Pratt's father Michael Imperiale (Sopranos) as Gary.
The list of better choices goes on and on ...
The film made me care little about Pratt, it did nothing to suggest a real connection was made between Pratt and his bank-robber girlfriend (hence, no conflict), there were no breakout scenes of discovery when the protagonist finds what people are up to ...
It plain sucked.
I would like to argue the merits of the film in a professional sense ... but, for me, this was a B-rate film. It is perhaps the only film I've seen in years that made me wonder what the b-roll looked like because -- to use a word from the film -- there was no "sequencing," no logical connect-the-dots a=b, which makes c, which causes d, and explains e...