The premise of this movie is a decent one, if done before in other ways. There are reasons why some movies go straight-to-video; the utter predictability, laughably clichéd scenes and obvious subplots intended to lengthen the film are these reasons. Ray Liotta's intensity at the beginning should have been capitalized upon, but he loses it halfway through. The movie has all the earmarks of being rewritten as it was being shot.
Some observations: What purpose does it serve to have TWO people gunning for the Ray Liotta character? The corrupt warden and "Russian mafia" hit-man contribute nothing to the storyline and could easily have been left out. The avenging brother would have been enough, and was not fleshed out. Liotta showing remorse, trying to befriend and help the man he shot and crippled, beginning to live a normal life, only to have the angry brother whose life was ruined bent on revenge.... now that could have been a good movie.
Do we really need to know the Dafoe character's personal life? What does this contribute? The way he tells the story of his murdered son should be shown to acting students as an example of bad "mailing it in" acting. "He looked up at me and said, I'll be alright Dad... and then he died." This only exists to prop up the cheesy end scene, which should never have been included. A better ending would be to have Liotta die, and that's it! Gee, the undercover guys driving around in a large dark colored van. How original. And the pursuers all driving identical black sedans. Not original at all... and the "blood dripping on the shoulder" flashback scene was shown far too often. Gotta justify that CGI expenditure, I suppose.
Why were the drugs taken as pills? Why not injections to make SURE? Why was the doctor allowed to go into Liotta's cell where he could be easily attacked? How is it that Defoe was beaten by Liotta the first time, but the second time Dafoe suddenly gets fighting skills and beats Liotta to a pulp?
Ah, there is plenty more to pick at, but to save time, stay away from this one.
Some observations: What purpose does it serve to have TWO people gunning for the Ray Liotta character? The corrupt warden and "Russian mafia" hit-man contribute nothing to the storyline and could easily have been left out. The avenging brother would have been enough, and was not fleshed out. Liotta showing remorse, trying to befriend and help the man he shot and crippled, beginning to live a normal life, only to have the angry brother whose life was ruined bent on revenge.... now that could have been a good movie.
Do we really need to know the Dafoe character's personal life? What does this contribute? The way he tells the story of his murdered son should be shown to acting students as an example of bad "mailing it in" acting. "He looked up at me and said, I'll be alright Dad... and then he died." This only exists to prop up the cheesy end scene, which should never have been included. A better ending would be to have Liotta die, and that's it! Gee, the undercover guys driving around in a large dark colored van. How original. And the pursuers all driving identical black sedans. Not original at all... and the "blood dripping on the shoulder" flashback scene was shown far too often. Gotta justify that CGI expenditure, I suppose.
Why were the drugs taken as pills? Why not injections to make SURE? Why was the doctor allowed to go into Liotta's cell where he could be easily attacked? How is it that Defoe was beaten by Liotta the first time, but the second time Dafoe suddenly gets fighting skills and beats Liotta to a pulp?
Ah, there is plenty more to pick at, but to save time, stay away from this one.