I share everything. Perfect analysis. Given the cast, they could certainly have put more effort into the plot and dialogues (too many absurd things, as you listed). Disheveled Pacino seems to be there reluctantly.

@strangebedfellows said:

Just watched this and it ticked a lot of boxes - all negative.

One would think there is some objective ability to know before release whether a movie is going to do well with its audience or not. Yet, often, people involved in a bad production all liked the work and thought "hey, this could be something" before it eventually fell flat.

This director, Johnny Martin, does not appear to be very good. His body of work as a director is middling — not a large body of work, yet still, not a single production rating above 59% here on TMDb (Case#13 doesn't count because its 100% is the result of a single individual rating it).

As a producer, he's got some kind of relationship with Cuba Gooding Jr., appearing as a second unit director or producer on at least four CGJ movies I bothered to find, none of which muster above a 57% rating.

There just may not be much basis for high expectations from this dude.

Pacino must have needed the money.

I might suggest, rather, that Pacino needed the work. We Hollywood outsiders often wonder why actors we like get involved in bad productions, but acting is not a 9-5 job with a guaranteed pay-cheque every two weeks. Actors don't know when they're going to land their next project; and when they do, they don't know if it's going to be a financial success or a bomb. It takes a lot of ego to make it as an actor, but that ego must be balanced by a lot of humility — A-listers still do have to audition, and push through rejections to get to that next role. Respect among their peers comes through not thinking they are so much better than others that they don't have to hustle like everyone else to land parts. And landing parts means getting to work with that next production team full of new relationships, new potential collaboration vectors that can lead to future work. It's all a hustle.

And this does not even begin to recognize simply that, as creatives, they need to be busy on something creative, collaborative, busy in the process, busy interacting and working with others. It is like a drug (which is why creatives like actors and musicians often do drugs - when they are not working with others, where else can they get the high that comes from working with others? Yep, drugs).

At any rate, apologies to those who may have read these sentiments in other threads. It comes up often, because the idea that actors "need the money" comes up a lot. It might be difficult for regular people to appreciate how rich some of them really are, it's not money they need. So what is it? It's the nature of the beast, it's the business, they need to hustle, they need the work.