I'd put off seeing "Against All Odds" for almost 30 years, though I'd loved Phil Collins video, and the title song, since it debuted on MTV. Turns out that the video is the better of the two and I should have just watched that. I finally rented the film, and it stinks. I can't believe Taylor Hackford made this confusing mess of a film. I also can't believe the 9-10 star reviews of the film on this site.
I adore Jeff Bridges, Rachel Ward, and most of the other actors in the film, but not one of them does a credible job, which I don't think was their fault. Emotions range from spoiled tween to dementia-riddled senior on tranquilizers. One minute Rachel is crying, the next she's stomping off in a huff, then she runs away and jumps on a plane. Bridges recites his lines as if from a teleprompter, when just two years before, in "Tron," he is delightfully droll and playful as Flynn. Same with Ward; she was amazing two years earlier as Juliette in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid." Alex Karras is completely wasted here. He has about three minutes tops of screen time, where he's just used as a plot point.
Another reviewer mentioned that Bridges was in the best shape of his life at this time, and it's true that both he and Ward look fantastic. That doesn't quite make up for the dearth of good acting. The viewer has 128 minutes of story to sit through and in a film of that length they need something more than beautiful people to keep their attention.
When you have the superlative Richard Widmark in your film as the main baddie and even his performance is comatose, something is dreadfully wrong. Widmark is more like an insurance agent discussing options on your policy than the crime kingpin he is supposed to be; no one can do evil expressions like Widmark, yet his face seems to have turned to stone here. James Woods, who can be counted on to go over the top if he is allowed to, remains about floor level with his emotions and his acting. When he threatens Bridges it sounds like your kid brother trying to impress you; there is no menace behind his threats. Because of all this I feel the blame for the nearly universal bad performances in this film has to fall on the director. This group of actors had given many wonderful performances before they made this film...they were capable of much more if only the director had asked it of them.
The horrendous score and incidental music also deserve to be called out. The jagged electronic score was completely wrong. Hackford should have had Phil Collins do that as well; it cried out for something more lushly melodious and symphonic. The score bears a good deal of the blame in my reasons for hating the film.
Hackford must have been distracted throughout the filming. He'd done a good job on "An Officer and a Gentleman," which had some great performances, but this film is just a complete dud. The only reason to watch it is for the beautiful scenery of coastal Mexico, and even that is muted on the DVD release. I'm upset that I can't get back the two hours I wasted on this movie.
I adore Jeff Bridges, Rachel Ward, and most of the other actors in the film, but not one of them does a credible job, which I don't think was their fault. Emotions range from spoiled tween to dementia-riddled senior on tranquilizers. One minute Rachel is crying, the next she's stomping off in a huff, then she runs away and jumps on a plane. Bridges recites his lines as if from a teleprompter, when just two years before, in "Tron," he is delightfully droll and playful as Flynn. Same with Ward; she was amazing two years earlier as Juliette in "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid." Alex Karras is completely wasted here. He has about three minutes tops of screen time, where he's just used as a plot point.
Another reviewer mentioned that Bridges was in the best shape of his life at this time, and it's true that both he and Ward look fantastic. That doesn't quite make up for the dearth of good acting. The viewer has 128 minutes of story to sit through and in a film of that length they need something more than beautiful people to keep their attention.
When you have the superlative Richard Widmark in your film as the main baddie and even his performance is comatose, something is dreadfully wrong. Widmark is more like an insurance agent discussing options on your policy than the crime kingpin he is supposed to be; no one can do evil expressions like Widmark, yet his face seems to have turned to stone here. James Woods, who can be counted on to go over the top if he is allowed to, remains about floor level with his emotions and his acting. When he threatens Bridges it sounds like your kid brother trying to impress you; there is no menace behind his threats. Because of all this I feel the blame for the nearly universal bad performances in this film has to fall on the director. This group of actors had given many wonderful performances before they made this film...they were capable of much more if only the director had asked it of them.
The horrendous score and incidental music also deserve to be called out. The jagged electronic score was completely wrong. Hackford should have had Phil Collins do that as well; it cried out for something more lushly melodious and symphonic. The score bears a good deal of the blame in my reasons for hating the film.
Hackford must have been distracted throughout the filming. He'd done a good job on "An Officer and a Gentleman," which had some great performances, but this film is just a complete dud. The only reason to watch it is for the beautiful scenery of coastal Mexico, and even that is muted on the DVD release. I'm upset that I can't get back the two hours I wasted on this movie.