The Contract Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Every Killer Meets His Equal.
The only thing standing between an assassin and his target is a father who must protect his son.
The widower teacher and baseball and basketball coach Ray Keene lost his wife that died of cancer two years ago. When his teenage son Chris Keene is caught by the police smoking pot, Ray invites him to hike and camp in the woods to increase their bonds. Meanwhile, the mercenary assassin Frank Carden is arrested by FBI after a car accident in the middle of a contract to kill an important target. While Frank is traveling on the road escorted by three FBI agents, his men try to rescue him, but his car falls into a river and is carried by the drift. Ray helps the wounded agent and the cuffed Frank to leave the river, and feels responsible to deliver Frank to justice. The former policeman and stubborn Ray does not listen to Frank's proposal to leave him alone and travel through the woods with Chris, trying to find a safe place. But Frank's men and an undercover agent in the team are chasing the group with different lethal intentions.
| Morgan Freeman | Carden |
| John Cusack | Ray |
| Jamie Anderson | Chris |
| Corey Johnson | Davis |
| Jonathan Hyde | Turner |
| Bill Smitrovich | Wainwright |
| Anthony Warren | Royko |
| Ned Bellamy | Evans |
| Thomas Lockyer | Johnson |
| Gary Whelan | Stanfield |
| Ian Shaw | Michaels |
| Atanas Srebrev | Rodrigues |
| Maynard Eziashi | Robbins |
| William Tapley | Jennings |
| Ryan McCluskey | Lochlan |
5.60 out of 10 (5932 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Blech!
posted on 04 Aug 2009The acting in this movie is atrocious, the plot lame, and the actual filming style bland with a little sparkle once in a while. I don't like Cusack's acting in any movie; he is like a weak Nicolas Cage. Here his acting is on par with all the other actors here. Freeman does his usual poker face shtick, but he cannot rise too far above the lameness of everyone else. The plot resembles a high school play, with a lot of lines delivered like an unwanted baby. I saw very little stylistic innovation with the camera. I saw a lot of boring woodlands. I saw a lot of wooden actors. I could have bought a nice wooden bookend with the money I used to watch this movie; it would have brought me more enjoyment.
A veiled criticism of the Bush Administration
posted on 19 Jul 2009The bad guys in this film are members of a group contracted by the federal government to protect the life of the president. Well, the U.S. Secret Service has this responsibility. So, the head of the bad guys in this film is some director in the U.S. Secret Service, and since the film is contemporary, that would make it a Secret Service under the Bush administration. Like a Nazi SS organization a'going around willy nilly killing whoever ostensibly to "protect the president." This element of the plot, vilifying by implication the U.S. Secret Service and the office of the president, is simply ultra 'silver spoon in the mouth' left wing tripe. This veiled criticism of the Bush administration for me wiped out the value I might have had for this film, less some of its story detail technical problems and a lame attempt to portray romance at the end of the film. Definition of villains is essential and in this film...am I suppose to buy this picture of our current federal administration? The writer of this script has far more personality than brains. When I got a clear picture of who the bad guys are, it spoiled the entire production effort for me, which is why I gave this a 1 out of 10 for a comparatively well acted and well directed film.
The contract...to bore u to death
posted on 19 Jul 2009a lots been written already, and satisfactorily its mostly bad so i'd like to just add a few points that make this movie so disgustingly lame.1) Freeman shoves the billionaire's son in front of a speeding vehicle to kill him in broad daylight...for a secretive man he doesn't give much thought to neighbors, passerby or the motorist reporting him.2) he takes a team of 4 military men to snipe an old goat whose supposed to be attending his son's funeral including a field tracker so you'd think getting at the target would be more difficult than shooting him from behind a bush.3) the marshals escort Freeman in a car which doesn't even have bulletproof glass n fall for the pre-historic trick of faking a roadblock. Their captain even tells his man to go help the road blockers as if they were out on a picnic.4)freeman didn't seem all too wet after coming out of the river. Then cusack decides to risk his son's life just cuz his ego was taunted by freeman? 5) the bad guys say that by morning every cop in the state would be after them...but all we see was the three dysfunctional feds, two fat cops and two paramedics in a copter! 6) the shooting is awful..really pathetic and the only thing that sucks more is the goofy romance shown between cusack and the girl...7) lastly there is no state alert for freeman n he rents a room at a motel, places the kid in it n then gets a sniper gun and is at the graveyard. the sniper, getting paid half a million!, misses again and is mercifully killed. Freeman doesn't even ask him who hired him. Very professional, all of it.i think its Freeman's worst yet...truly terrible
"You're a spook?"
posted on 05 Jul 2009Is it me or has Morgan Freeman not aged in twenty years? A manhunt movie, a hit-man movie, a political thriller, a father-son adventure, and none of the above, with mild complications. CONTRACT is the kind of B-picture that indicates action-movieness by giving the stars minor facial injuries in the second act. A facial injury indicates jeopardy, but does not really add to the characters' obstacle, and so it's kind of an empty gesture. Like the whole show.Well-cast, well-acted and more or less competently directed, but the plot and story are familiar and obvious; characters are poorly fleshed and illogically behaved; dialog is borderline acceptable; third act contains convenient, ludicrous, unsatisfying, and ultimately unwatchable developments.Some nice scenery, Dante Spinotti and Bruce Beresford quoting to us from LAST OF THE MOHICANS and BLACK ROBE, respectively. But the wilderness locations are pretty tame, and rugged terrain often looks less than rugged. Particularly lame is the sight of military-trained assassins picking gingerly through a field of boulders that a 10-year old girl could skip across.Periodically though a pretty good action scene comes out of nowhere. There's a bit with a helicopter, a couple of jolting vehicular deaths, the obligatory car off a mountain road into the river, and several cold-blooded shootings. Also on the plus side of the genre movie equation, we have one shot of nudity and zero shots of Steven Seagal.
A paycheck film if there ever was one.
posted on 15 Jun 2009I'm sorry. I am a huge fan of John Cusak and Morgan Freeman. I have loved their work's apart and when my wife brought home this movie from the store last night, my heart actually skipped a beat. My first chance to see them working together. John's wit and Morgan's presence...I popped it right into the DVD Player. I was intrigued at first. A little bit of good action, some Freeman dry wit. Then it all fell apart. Cusak just seemed to be phoning his performance in...even with the horrible lines. Freeman almost seemed to be bemused with the terrible story line and the bad acting all around him. And the plot...just a little too out there for me. The one point that explains why Cusak's character does what he does for the rest of the movie is given no background. Just one line given by Cusak. It actually angered me that I not only sat through this drivel, but actually paid to rent it! Cusak and Freeman both hacked their way through this just for the paycheck at the end. Sad really. My opinion...stay away from it. You'll feel better about both actors.
Too average for two terrific actors
posted on 13 Jun 2009I am a huge fan of both Morgan Freeman and John Cussack, so when I saw this rental at Hollywood Video, I didn't hesitate, it seemed like a very good idea of the two of them being together in the film. However, I was disappointed when I brought it home and looked up the rating on IMDb to see an average rating. But knowing I had to get my money's worth, I watched it this evening, now I didn't think it was a bad movie, but it was pretty average for what I was expecting from these extremely talented actors. The plot had extreme potential, but some things were not explained well enough, like the characters just had no depth. The script just needed some more work.After Ray's son gets into trouble, he wants to do a little bonding with him, so he takes him camping. But things get a little interesting when he and his son try to save two people from the river who have washed ashore, one of them is a police officer who is fatally wounded and the other man, Cander, is a hit man who is wanted by the F.B.I. and is also being followed by his fellow assassins. Ray and his son take Cander and try to take him to the police, but it's hard when the assassins are after all of them and won't stop until they get what they want.A hit-man with a heart of gold, not that original, not that believable, not to mention how some of the plot seemed a bit mediocre and confusing at times. Now, Morgan and John did a good job with what they had, they made the film watchable. They really did have good chemistry so I do hope they do a film together soon, just before they do that, they read the script first. So The Contract is a film I would say is watchable, just like I said, it's a bit average for what you would expect, but just judge for yourself.6/10
Zzzzzzzzz
posted on 28 May 2009Despite the two/three great actors (in the company of many weaker ones), I can't bring myself to give this movie a higher rating than three. Two and a half if that was possible. This movie offered a mediocre plot line at best, bad attempts at humor delivered poorly, non-engaging characters and non-engaging character stories. Really just very very boring the whole way through. My boyfriend thought it average on the whole, but for something with Morgan Freeman as the lead character, which labels itself an "action movie", it just wasn't up to par. Maybe if I was on a plane with absolutely nothing else to do... if you're sitting at home though... turn on the TV. You're bound to find something better on there.
Illogical Scenes
posted on 28 May 2009I agree with many of the reviews before me about this movie. But what particularly annoyed me was the unclear or almost no MOTIVATION for Ray to be risking his life and that of his son, for a killer. He has no responsibility ethically or morally to put himself in so much danger and especially the danger to his young son. It's just crazy and unrealistic, knowing he was being chased by trained killers. It ruined the movie for me to keep saying to myself Why are you doing this, are you nuts, so obsessed with doing your "duty" I suppose as an ex-cop? Not good enough. And then to add insult to injury, risking his kid's life even further by climbing down a mountain face in the rain with no ropes. Just plain STUPID. And those crazy pilots running out to get killed with no suspicions? Not even real life country cops would be that naive or unprepared, knowing what they were dealing with.
Cliché and poorly written
posted on 26 May 2009To the viewer: Don't waste your time. This is poorly written, cliché, and just more of the same rubbish we see all too often. To the writers of this film: It had such potential, but shame on you for putting out this rubbish. The dialog is so cliché it's bordering on cheesy; the little bit of nudity is so over the top gratuitous it annoyed me and added nothing to this film. The scene where the helicopter pilot gets out of the chopper after seeing his partner killed is such an insult to everybody's intelligence, it's a wonder you still have a job! He just saw his partner killed - does he radio for help, pull out a gun, or just take off? No... of course not, he steps out of the chopper and walks to his certain death! Beyond laughable! Just insulting! The guy with the computer chess game (in the forest)- I just roll my eyes. Once more I have to say -- Hollywood WAKE UP!!!!!
If Cliché = C than this film is C x 100
posted on 24 May 2009John Cusack and Morgan Freeman in the same movie! It's a shame that it is a low budget drama that had absolutely no originality. I mean this was very laughable. They try using stupid one liners that you would see out of a Chuck Norris or Segal film. Freeman and Cusack were OK but the effort wasn't there as they probably needed quick cash.The plot consist of a father taking his son camping but find a man in handcuffs. They make the decision to escort him to the highway so they can call 911. Little do they know that the man has people trying to rescue him at all cost so now the father and son are in danger.It's very hard for me to give a 2 to a movie with Cusack and Freeman in it but it just was that bad. The funniest scene was when a helicopter filled with 4 people crash violently in the woods and not a single person has a scratch on them. Avoid this movie unless you like Seagal movies.
Terrible Acting supplements terrible script
posted on 22 May 2009I would have never imagined in my life that Morgan Freeman, especially at his age, would of accepted this lousy role and turned in a lousy performance. This movie is not worth the $10 in a theater, the $3 to rent, or the damn $ 2 late fee I was charged because I erased this dreadful experience from my memory ASAP by watching Superbad again! John Kusack and his son's relationship was typical, " Momma died, I smoke Pot, The world Sucks" only to be comforted by a dad who doesn't care, apparently can't parent without the mom, or just hates the miserable son. The main problem with this movie though is the African American actor who is part of the pursuit team that aim to find Freeman. His acting reminds me of a low budget adult film that is often exploited in comedies.
Waste of Time!
posted on 22 May 2009This movie was awful and very unrealistic. Cusack who plays hero house dad/gym teacher was absolutely horrible. Whoever casted him to this part should be ashamed. His belly was flapping as he was doing his stunts. Furthermore, I am very surprised that Morgan Freeman would subject himself to this God awful production. Bad Acting, Bad Directing, Bad Writing. I should have known this movie was going to be a bust. In conclusion I would rather watch the Little Mermaid than watch this movie again. At least I would know what I was getting myself into. If you are thinking of watching this movie, do yourself a favor and don't. It is definitely not worth the hour and half of time.
A Film To Be Forgotten
posted on 28 Apr 2009As a rule, I tend to check out all Morgan Freeman movies, being that he's a favorite of mine. On many occasions, such as "Unleashed", or "Batman Begins" you are in for a rare treat of a jewel of a movie. "The Contract" is not one of those occasions.Though I like John Cusack, I've noticed a growing list of disappointing films, to which I can now add another.A gym teacher, Ray Keene (Cusack) & son, in an attempt to mend their ailing relationship, embark on a camping excursion, during which they encounter Frank Cordell, a fleeing contract killer, (Freeman) whose current mission has been sidetracked by an unforeseen accident. Feeling a misplaced (& somewhat unexplainable) sense of authoritarian duty, Keene decides, at risk of peril to himself & his son, to take custody of Cordell, & see him brought to justice. The peril comes in the form of a pursuing group of mercenaries, whom are compatriots of Cordell & intend to free him & likely dispel with the growing group of hikers, who have captured him.There's not much more to tell than that, & any spoilers would be wasted print, as there's nothing at all to be surprised about, in this movie. It reads like a rejected MacGyver script, & it plays out with all the intensity & excitement of a 97 minute wallpapering demonstration. There would be virtually nothing to hold one's attention were it not for the sporadic appearances of some gunfire.With less than scraps to work with, Cusack manages to piece together a fairly competent performance, & Freeman handles himself, as usual, with poise, & dignity, but all is for naught, for every other performance in the film is second rate hackneyed swill, with all the clichés in tow, from the affable bumpkin Sheriff's department, to the underhanded shadow government agent, to the upscale yuppie hikers, to the intellectual "Pro" mercenary, & his wise cracking, merciless cohort.There are only two reasons to know that this film exists. Number one, is that show business is an industry, & though at times you can get Michelangelo showing up to the party, most often, all they are capable of producing is Styrofoam peanuts. Reason number two is that my theory about Morgan Freeman continues to hold true under the worst of scenarios, which is that he could play a superbly masterful, award winning performance, reading the assembly instructions for an office chair
Not Bad entertainment
posted on 31 Mar 2009Just this AM .. heard on the radio that 70+% of our intelligence work is done by/thru contract private companies.Very timely .. considering we watched the movie last night! Nice scenery, and a unique plot. Liked the ending. The cast and acting were adequate .. considering some of the situations that string the movie together.Reminiscent of the Sidney Poitier/Tom Beranger romp thru Washington state and Southern Canada from a decade or so ago! Lot's of improbable situations and "dumb people in the woods" scenarios. Grown people who make stupid decisions, repeatedly, bother me.... but hey ... this is entertainment adventure fluff .. not Shakespeare !!
A terribly pointless affair
posted on 27 Mar 2009Ray Keene is a former policeman who is struggling to build his relationship with his young son. His plan to bond over a camping trip in the woods goes sour though when they come across a hit-man (Cordell) in the middle of escaping Government custody. Keene holds Cordell at gunpoint but without a mobile phone signal they begin to trek towards civilisation. However with Cordell's men hot on their heels, Ray becomes increasingly desperate as he tries to get to the protection of the authorities.I saw this film on an overnight bus crossing Argentina. I mention this not as name dropping but to admit that the sound was very low as must passengers were sleeping and relying on headphones or the Spanish subtitles. Without headphones or a working Spanish, I prepared to strain my ears and also use the subtitles the best I could. I needn't have worried because I could have followed this if the sound was on mute and the DVD was playing all the scenes on random shuffle. The plot is simple perhaps but it did offer a sort of moral ambiguity that was interesting to me at first. With two strong actors in the leads I expected the verbal fireworks to be more interesting than the action. In a way I was correct but this is not to say that the script was good – just that the action was poor. The moral complexity of good and bad is skirted on but is ultimately dumped in a ending that is nothing more than insultingly lazy writing.Fortunately anyone getting to the end will not be surprised by this as it is pretty much what the previous hour or so had been like. The narrative is totally unconvincing and offers little to make up for it. The tension that could have covered the plot holes is absent and the action is mostly just dumb. Writers Katz and Darrouzet deserve much of the credit for this because really nobody is given much to work with. Director Beresford does the basics with little conviction but I did feel sorry for the cast. Freeman and Cusack both deserved much better than this nonsense. Freeman I assume was attracted by the chance to play a baddie and it is a shame then the script doesn't really let him do this with any effort. Cusack does what is asked of him but nothing more. The support cast are average at best in keeping with their cardboard characters.Overall then a roundly poor film that offers nothing of interest and wastes the talents of the two actors in the lead. If I hadn't been a captive audience I would have struggled to make it past the 30 minute mark.
Lots of wasted potential
posted on 17 Feb 2009I give three for Freeman and Cusack and some other characters - they did what they were paid for. But when I watched the movie I got impression that someone simply could not decided how to blow life in to simple story. Since there were several ways to make the movie far more than average: - emphasise political issues - getting into thriller plot where main characters are forced to get out from uneasy situation. - replacement of Freeman helpers with group of killers to eliminate him. Now all of people - Freeman, Cusack, son and these two useless characters were to fight for life and be on Freemans skills mercy; - making Cusack not ex cop but someone more dangerous like ex killer or maybe a serial killer? Any ideas that may make the plot aloft seems acceptable for me. I have seen almost 2000 movies - this is a collection I have. And this movie as one of very few caused me to such thoughts that it is lack of decision what direction to go. Since nobody decided what movie is actually made we got proper receipt as for average meal: father son conflict, bad man who is not really bad, traitor, treacherous officials, some terrorist support and woman since wife is dead. While the movie itself opened so many routes - compared to hundreds that were completely wasted from the idea creation moment. I always wonder why this happens.
OK if you're a big fan of Freeman or Cusack, otherwise skip it
posted on 03 Feb 2009I'm kinda surprised that names like John Cusack and Morgan Freeman would be associated with such a pedestrian film as this. Then again their names were the only reason I picked this up, so maybe the studio's ploy worked, and it's actually their performances that saved it from being unwatchable.Cusack is having father/son issues with the teen after his wife passes away from cancer. In an attempt to devote some "quality time" and bond with his son they go on a camping trip in the Washington state wilderness. Unfortunately for them, rogue CIA spook Freeman happens to be en route to prosecution in that area when his mercenary buddies try to free him. The escape scenario doesn't go as smoothly as planned and Freeman ends up in the unwanted "custody" of Cusack (who just happens to be an ex-cop turned teacher) with the help of an errant handgun. In the middle of the nowhere they look to evade the trailing mercanaries and get to safety.There are way too many implausiblities and clichés in the story to make this a good film (e.g., why wouldn't Cusack just take Freeman's advice and the gun, leave and not put his son in harm's way?). The meeting of the other hiking couple was totally unnecessary and felt tacked on just to try to add some drama at the last scene. The action was OK, but rote and implausuble again. But at least we get some nice scenery and decent performances from the leads, so if you're fans of theirs, as I am, you may want to give this a rent.
Solid acting by two greats highlight this sleeper . . .
posted on 17 Dec 2008Drawn by the cover showing Morgan Freeman (great actor) and John Cusack (my all time favorite!), I grabbed this one from the bargain bin. Bruce Beresford is a solid director, although I'm not a huge fan of his stuff, so this was a plus. Went in holding out some hope, but expecting the worst. To agree with a previous reviewer, I did not like Cliffhanger. However, I tend towards the lower key movie when the theme is the same. For example, loved Deep Impact, disliked Armageddon. This movie is (almost) everything Cliffhanger ain't. Morgan Freeman as an assassin and John Cusack as a (not so) out-of-his-depth father on a hiking trip with his son lead this otherwise B-movie cast through the paces. Everyone turned in at least a good performance, with Alice Krige, Bill Smitrovich and Anthony Warren outperforming. Yes, there were a few obvious contrivances. No explosions or massive stunts. However, the action was relatively realistic and the effects were solid. I'll be watching (and enjoying) this one again.
About the beautiful scenery and the female hiker.
posted on 23 Nov 2008The landscape is really beautiful. Actually the scenes of Washington wilderness were shot in Bulgaria. The moraines, which are one of the nature wonders, are in the Vitosha Mountain near Sofia. Besides the nature, I'm a big fan of Morgan Freeman and John Cusack. And without them this movie would really suck. Unfortunately the story was too cliché and predictable. In Lucky number Slevin, Freedman was a "better" villain. However, what I really hated was the character of the female hiker and the way she reacted on the event of what happened to her boy friend. And then again, it was so predictable that she would wind up at the end of the movie the way she did, which make it kind of cheesy too. The cinematography was well done, but it couldn't fix the flaws of the bad script, neither the big stars such as Cusack and Freedman.
Rent, then demand your money back
posted on 12 Aug 2009OK, this movie is the biggest let down since I started dating. There was only one good scene, when freeman and cusack get into a fighting match near the end. The rest sucks. The casting is horrible. The sun just wanders around reading cue cards. The FBI woman who is supposed to be the hard ass lesbian chick is less convincing than decaf coffee. The "team" that gets assembled by freeman is the largest bunch of clichés since "Top Secret", only I don't think it was intentional this time. The funny cops aren't funny. The love interest isn't convincing. Other than that, the plot is confusing or non-existent. Basically, I cried at the end because the movie took two of the best names in Hollywood and made them do a movie written by a 14 year old retard (apologies to all retards reading this site).