Dark comedy or action thriller?

Rating: 5/10 (11 March 2002)

Floor wax or dessert topping?
Relax, it's both. After watching an excruciating first 30 minutes of the movie anticipating a decent, mindless action flick, I came to realize that the movie makers hadn't intended it to have a believable story line nor three-dimensional characters. Nope. What I got from the movie was so much better: Jerry Bruckheimer was shooting a comedy, carefully wrapped up in a blast-fest package.
Once I realized that, my opinion of the movie changed.
Like other IMDB contributors, I thought Cage's drawl was silly. I also thought casting Cusack, a great actor, as an unlikely action hero was weak (driving alone to meet a plane full of vicious convicts, armed with only a pistol?). Yes, the plot was filled with more holes than a Beverly Hills golf-course. Yes, the story was predictable and the dialogue unbelievable. Yes, great talent was wasted (Cage, Cusack, Malkovich). But, I have to admit, the movie was good for a few yucks and a lot of adrenaline rush. I also enjoyed Malkovich's performance as an intellectually-advanced, morally-stunted psychopath.
Before I realized it was a comedy, I would have given the movie a 2 or 3. But now, armed with this knowledge, I give it a 5/10.