The Contract (2006)

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Major Frank Carden (Morgan Freeman) is the leader of a group of well paid hitmen. His job takes his to Washington state. Through a series of events, his trip is interrupted and rescue attempt is botched.Ray Keene (John Cusack) is going camping with his son (Jamie Anderson) for a much needed bonding trip. Playing the good Samaritan, Ray gets caught in the middle of the events, finding himself on the run with a handcuffed Morgan being followed by heavily armed bad guys who are being tracked by the good guys...but the bad guys have never seen a John Cusack film and don't know what a school teacher, wanting to bond with his son, is capable of doing.The acting was good, even if the plot was weak. The film has a twist, but nothing to write home about. Might work for an action flick rental. Not on my keeper shelf.Parental Guide: Couple of rare F-bombs, no sex, rear nudity (Megan "cute tush" Dodds)

Frank Carden a dangerous trained killer is about to plan his next target when an car accident brings him to the hospital and when the nurses find a gun in his possession they call the authorities and they find out who he really is so they need to move him in order to be judged and to answer for his facts. But he is not alone, this partners fakes a problem with a truck and manage to get rod of the officers that are escorting him but a mistake makes the car to be thrown in the river and now must look for him in the woods. In the meanwhile the teacher Ray along with his son Chris are on a hike and observe the two man that are drifting along the river. They find out what is happening so now it's up to them to take Frank in front of the justice but it will not be easy because Frank's friends are following them and will do anything to recover their associate because without him they could not finish the deal and get their money.The Contract is a weak movie with less action scenes and more then a half occurs in a forest and all we see is the three man walking around. If it wasn't with the idea that a simple man can master so well a machine gun even knock down a helicopter maybe it came up more real but with this exaggeration the movie becomes dumb and a waste of two good actors.

This is a good thriller. I don't know why the hate, or the direct-to-video release? First things first, there is a script to appreciate. It's written by (Stephen Katz), who is an experienced action and thriller writer. His career contains writing episodes of TV shows like (Hart to Hart, Tales of the Gold Monkey, Magnum, P.I., Knight Rider, Hunter, and The A-Team). In (The Contract) he evokes (3:10 to Yuma), the western classic, with similar characters and storyline. In a way, I may see it as a better remake with adding many remarkable points along the way such as : being modern, the matter of pursuing the hit-man by his crew while using high tech, one of this crew plans secretly to kill him, plus the mysterious security manager who works for obscure agenda, and the tincture of the political satire with hiring assassins for higher goals then getting rid of them for another higher goals, or so they say. Then, a climax concerning an assassination. I liked all of that. The second top element around was (Morgan Freeman). He was the boss with his charisma, vitality, and kindness under the evil surface. Watch him doing his action scenes perfectly, despite that he was 70-year-old (I was yelling sometimes "You're the man Freeman !). (Jonathan Hyde) proved that he can be someone else (Richey Rich)'s butler; so after being sophisticated with dark suit, he's now sophisticated with dark side. The relief was well-made with 2 hick cops. The numbered fistfights were very well choreographed and executed. The cinematography was beautiful with nice carders and wild locations. And the direction had its moments; I loved the sequence of breaking into the cottage at all blue lighting. The thing is, some points disappoint this movie as solid enjoyable thriller.The lead undertakes leading that dangerous prisoner to the police, because the latter told him earlier "you can't do it" ??! Why the lead wasn't made as someone who lost his job as a cop because one prisoner escaped from him once? Or maybe he lost his wife by the hands of a loose criminal. Any of that could have explained the lead's eagerness to do the job as a man who avenges his past or his wife. But alas. He didn't even have that problem where his son doesn't see him as a hero or something ! The character of the girl looked so inserted; for having a girl around, for a naked scene, for a possible love interest for the widower lead (especially when it's made as someone who has issues with her boyfriend, not suffering much after his murder). Well, generally, how obvious !! I read that the movie at some point ran out of money to an extent where director (Bruce Beresford) was forced to use his own money to complete the production; this shows at the climax. There is something hasty and poor about it. Sure the movie needed hotter action zenith (annoying p.s : How come all of that action is taking place around the funeral and nobody noticed?). Then, the warning of (Freeman)'s character to the security manager before the end; basically I want to know; what could be exactly the problems that that lady would cause to the lead and his son ?! And frankly, despite doing his best effort, (John Cusack) is always a shortcoming to me, with weak charisma and performance that lacks the power to convince.No doubt it's watchable and tense. The script, the direction and (Freeman) provide such a good "short" time, knowing that it runs for just 85 minutes. True that in terms of writing it was more interesting and complicated than (3:10 to Yuma), but lost some depth and fair climax. Some touches here and there could have made it longer and better though. So while being potentially more advanced than (3:10 to Yuma), it arrives late, where nearly everybody have taken the first train !However, and despite anything, I give it 7 out of 10. While movies like (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest), (Crank), (The Da Vinci Code), and (Casino Royale) are all produced in the same year, having – unlike (The Contract) – cinematic releases, more success and sequels, I see that (The Contract) beats them all.

Many folks seem to hate this item. I really don't understand why. OK, I agree that there are many clichés in it; for instance John Cusack - as the good American who struggles to save him and his son against the evil ones. Speaking of the evil guys, I find Morgen Freeman exquisite as the villain. This is a very unusual character for him, admit it, for God's sake. He plays here a hired gunman, a professional killer, a "shadow" mercenary working for the Government, erasing people "against progress", as he says in the movie...he leads a bunch of guys like him who have a contract on a scientist who may jeopardize the Government plans. Against progress...I won't tell the whole story, but it is surprising on many points. Believe me. Morgan Freeman is a bad guy, OK; but after the first half film, he becomes not so bad to the audience, especially in his relations with Cusack and his son. A cliché, I agree. But the very surprise, the one for which I am so amazed, is in the last thirty seconds of the film, where you are suddenly awareSPOOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERSthat Freeman will remain a cold, mechanical killing machine, despite all you saw about him and his help and protection for the real hero of the film: John Cusack. When he protected him against his own - Freeman's - fellow deadly companions.