Okay, granted there were some cool things in this movie that I have to give it credit for. Such as the house drinking scene that ends with some fatalities, and Thornton's character in particular. But these are overshadowed by all the bad parts of the movie.
1. Who the heck wouldn't keep $4 million that they found because of ethical reasons? Not many people, and I certainly didn't believe that Hank was one of them.
2. Why does this movie use dumb characters to make dumb decisions to complicate the plot? I realized I disliked this movie when Jacob hits the guy on the snowmobile and then Hank kills him when he realizes that the guy is still alive. Can you say "Out of character?" Why is Raimi presenting us with such a contrived scene that I've seen countless times before as if it's something ingenious that I've never seen before?
3. How can two people (Hank and his wife) go from 1 day not wanting to keep the money, to the next day not really caring too much that Hank killed a guy.
4. What stupid idea is it to go back to the crime scene?
5. Hello? Coroners can easily tell the difference between suffocation versus death by impact.
6. The snow hadn't fallen by the time the cops got to the snowmobile accident. Why didn't they figure anything out?
7. What kind of plot twist is it that the FBI agent didn't show the cop his badge? That's just BAD, BAD, BAD.
8. Wouldn't Hank have put his bullets in the gun while he was alone in the woods?
9. Can we get rid of the in-your-face animal symbolism?
10. I just don't believe that the characters we were presented with in the beginning would have done what they did throughout the movie. Yes, the point is that money corrupts people, but nowhere did I see any character development showing that. All of a sudden the characters were all doing things out of character and I was just supposed to accept it.
I thought this movie was pretty boring. Not only was the story contrived, but it didn't show me anything new at all. If you're going to pick up a contrived plot, and least do something new with it.
1. Who the heck wouldn't keep $4 million that they found because of ethical reasons? Not many people, and I certainly didn't believe that Hank was one of them.
2. Why does this movie use dumb characters to make dumb decisions to complicate the plot? I realized I disliked this movie when Jacob hits the guy on the snowmobile and then Hank kills him when he realizes that the guy is still alive. Can you say "Out of character?" Why is Raimi presenting us with such a contrived scene that I've seen countless times before as if it's something ingenious that I've never seen before?
3. How can two people (Hank and his wife) go from 1 day not wanting to keep the money, to the next day not really caring too much that Hank killed a guy.
4. What stupid idea is it to go back to the crime scene?
5. Hello? Coroners can easily tell the difference between suffocation versus death by impact.
6. The snow hadn't fallen by the time the cops got to the snowmobile accident. Why didn't they figure anything out?
7. What kind of plot twist is it that the FBI agent didn't show the cop his badge? That's just BAD, BAD, BAD.
8. Wouldn't Hank have put his bullets in the gun while he was alone in the woods?
9. Can we get rid of the in-your-face animal symbolism?
10. I just don't believe that the characters we were presented with in the beginning would have done what they did throughout the movie. Yes, the point is that money corrupts people, but nowhere did I see any character development showing that. All of a sudden the characters were all doing things out of character and I was just supposed to accept it.
I thought this movie was pretty boring. Not only was the story contrived, but it didn't show me anything new at all. If you're going to pick up a contrived plot, and least do something new with it.