31 May 2017 | citizen-caveman
Everything a heist thriller SHOULDN'T be
In the main, cardboard characters collide with wooden acting.
That said, Henry Rollins demonstrates that he can overcome the obstacle of ropey material and still deliver a decent performance. What a shame he don't recognise ropey material in the first instance. Dressed like an undertaker, he does a capable job of playing the creepy, serial killer. Giving the best performance of all he elevates himself above cliché.
The story doesn't really hold together. In places, purpose-wise some of the characters' actions don't make any sense. They place themselves in harm's way to achieve no, apparently, useful goal. Both the good guys and the bad guys seem to be trying to trip themselves up in places.
A good heist, in the movies at least, should be tight and methodical, think Heat (1995). They get in, get rich and get away. Most robbbers don't want to run into the police and get caught. Presumably. These guys take all day. There is no sense of impending deadline, so there's no tension.
Conflict be shouldn't delivered in a way that makes characters unsympathetic. The robbers swear and gesticulate at one other too often to seem mature enough to be professional. Acting like juvenile delinquents makes them even more unsympathetic. This carry-on produces a sense of conflict but an irksome one.
I could go on but it's too depressing.
Overall, this lacks sympathetic characters and, because you cannot care about any of the characters, any real tension. It's slow, clumsy and clichéd. Television does it better.