Sung Kang ruined this movie.
-
Prismark10 — 12 years ago(September 30, 2013 04:48 AM)
Kang was has been so good and charismatic in the Fast and Furious films that in effect his character was resurrected was saddles with a weak script, terrible characterisation and he did the best he could with a weak hand.
Its that man again!! -
mttyflynn — 13 years ago(February 04, 2013 07:33 PM)
I think it is refreshing to see an Asian lead who was not a Master Martial artist and he played the role just as it was written: Wooden and humorless personality cop, but even Dirty Harry was written that way and managed a sense of humor. Better than Kang? definately! Who? John Legazamo
. -
jsl_99 — 13 years ago(February 05, 2013 01:24 PM)
I'm not familiar with Kang's other work. Has he come off better in other films? Cause I wondered to myself was it the actor or just a badly written part. If Sly and Sung Kang had chemistry then I do think Bullet to the Head could've worked better. But Sly and Momoa save the film from being a complete dud in my opinion. I know it's a box office disaster but even with that it was far from the worst action film I've ever seen.
-
activista — 12 years ago(April 06, 2013 04:57 PM)
Yeahhe's come off way better in other filmscheck out his debut BETTER LUCK TOMORROW,THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS:TOKYO DRIFT, and THE MOTEL. I read an interview with hi in which he said he enjoyed playing in the film and especially playing alongside Sly and being in a Walter Hill film. He is a good actor,but the fact is,people just weren't all that impressed with this film regardless, which is why it flopped.
-
indisposedinmymind — 13 years ago(February 05, 2013 04:02 PM)
To be honest, I felt sorry for Sung Kung. He did the best he could with a weak character that was just there to flourish Stallone's ego! I agree that they had no chemistry, but if Thomas Jane had been cast (and I think he would have demanded a better part if he was) there would have been more of a charge between them and therefore it would have fit more in line with the buddy action flicks of yesteryear
maybe Stallone was still sore that Kurt Russell topped him in the charisma department in Tango & Cash and demanded an actor who he knew wasn't gonna raise his a game? Again, I don't blame Kung for this, but then again he's no Kurt Russell, is he?
IS THIS SOMETHING YOU CAN SHARE WITH THE REST OF US, AMAZING LARRY?!?! -
mdfaraone — 13 years ago(February 05, 2013 04:59 PM)
The pairing of Stallone and Russell was perfect, exactly what was needed here, they both had equal charisma and screen presence, heck I thought Momoa and Stallone seemed to have better chemistry in this and they were supposed to be mortal enemies. They should have stuck with Thomas Jane and tweaked the script to accomodate him. I still enjoyed the movie but it was less than the sum of it's parts and the premise had much more potential than what was delivered.
-
StrayButlerStraysAgain — 12 years ago(June 16, 2013 07:45 AM)
He did the best he could with a weak character that was just there to flourish Stallone's ego!
Are you being serious?
Stallone and Walter Hill wanted Thomas Jane. They lobbied HARD for Thomas Jane. They did everything they could to keep him on the project. But Joel Silver pulled rank and fired him in favour of Kang.
And really, you think BTTH is an ego film for Sly? It's the furthest thing from an ego trip. If the film was fuelled by ego, Jimmy Bobo would continually do things right and would be the hero. But Bobo is an antihero, and the things he does are less than savoury. He's a bad guy with a messed up moral compass, and he has his weaknesses.
Sly may have done some rewriting, but the film is ultimately Walter Hill's, and Sly took his direction and became the role that Hill wanted him to be.
~Cal
"Life is the Empire's currency. Spend it well." -
Ray_Tango — 12 years ago(April 28, 2013 07:49 PM)
I'm not going to comment on Jane being a better choice, but Kang was dull as dishwater in this film. You can tell he was brought on board at the last second, and the weak script changes due to his ethnicity f_cked up the chemistry. It's still a good film, but Kang was a miscast. Nothing against the man. He just felt out of place.
Jesse Ventura's Dating Service: -
d3ei — 12 years ago(May 25, 2013 12:46 PM)
In my honest opinion, its not just the character that was wooden, but sungs acting as well. I seen alotta his movies like tokyo drift, fast 5, fast 6, better luck tomorrow, and he acts the same in all of them. He's lifeless and doesnt put any emotion in his words. He plays one character in all of them, the quiet, soft spoken 'cool guy' with the 'cool pose.' He gives off very little energy and screen presence and comes off very subdued onscreen. But on a deeper level thats something I notice from most asian actors I see in movies and tv. They are all one-dimensional and have a similar energy about them where its either too much and over the top like Bobby Lee, Jackie Chan, or the Hangover guy, or very subdued and wooden like sung kang and john cho.