PlutoZoo

This film was a total waste of money. It is beyond me how established actors such as Toni Collette, Robert Pattinson and Mark Ruffalo could stoop so low. Ruffalo's acting is beyond cheesy, it is embarrassing, worse than the worst pantomime acting, and if you don't know what that is, think amateur, very amateur, dramatics. It's so bad that the word bad needs a new word for bad. I think there has been a major breakdown somewhere between what Hollywood thinks will sell and what people find to be good entertainment. The rating here is a pathetic example of why we can't rely on ratings anymore. The only thing that was any good on this movie was the CGI alien bugs and they delivered more acting talent than Ruffalo and Colette, despite only saying around 10 words.

Pattinson was mediocre, probably because his American accent is so insipid and irritating, it sounds like a contrived accent, whiny and nasal, precisely because it is. Why can't Hollywood let actors from other countries speak in their natural voice, it's sad and pathetic, a manic control of every nuance to fit some misplaced idea of what the audience wants. It's obsessive targeting of what they think will sell, when the reality is people want authenticity, not this pale imitation.

The writer was also the director which typically means the director isn't a writer and the naff plot, daft script and premise are so bad that it shows. It was annoying to watch and astonishingly bad. It remains a mystery to me as to how such awful rubbish ever gets made, except that the equation is known, get named actors saying any old dribble, write what some guy who lives in a fridge thinks is humour, then market the life out of it and make money. The truth of that equation is that the audience don't figure at all in the plan, and it shows, it really shows.

It's getting annoying now, how Amazon Prime Video buries the ratings of these awful movies which litter it's streaming offering, and that is despite owning IMDB; it seems that even it's own ratings engine brings too much accuracy to it's cheap and meagre offering. They surely know that not many will watch a movie rated this low and there are so many now on Amazon Prime Video that the platform is looking very cheap and B-movie heavy, much like a sub-tier cable TV channel that runs repeats IMO.

The trailer was so bad for this movie that I couldn't go any further and the rest of the ratings speak for themselves.

Part of the interest in the original Accountant film was the plot line around his abilities with numbers and forensic accounting which enables him to see through complex financial arrangements and other such things. It was what made the film original and intriguing, however the sequel only lightly touches on this and seems to forget that the reason for Affleck's wooden acting was his position on the spectrum rather than his, well, ... wooden acting. They forgot to reinforce that aspect of his character with the number crunching and the script was a watered-down version which was lazy and defaulted to a bad guy Vs worse guy shootout with the brother in tow.

There are some redeeming aspects but some virtue signalling also and the overaching story about human trafficking has been done a lot and probably deserves more heart and gravitas than this surface-level shoot-em-up flick could give it. In that respect, it was entirely predictable and without the aforementioned interest that stemmed from his cognitive abilities in the first film.