It's not all about size. Yes, Clive Owen is larger....But seriously, who looks the harder man to you? ?
Sure, size isn't everything but it plays a large part, and if you're as small as Mr. Cassel is in this film, then most guys of at least average build and height could just jump on top of him and strangle him, and that would be that.
I'm not sure if "hard" is a word I would use to describe either of them. In this film, Owen looks clean cut and not exactly "hard". Having said that, Cassel certainly does not look like a "hard man" in any way. He gives a slimy and untrustworthy look and is effective at playing weasel-like characters or mentally unbalanced criminals, but as a physical presence he looks very weak. I could maybe have taken the character more seriously if he was a smart criminal who kept his distance and used a gun when it was necessary to fulfill his objectives, but in this case he repeatedly throws himself in the face of the larger Clive Owen and repeatedly beats him up without any problem, and the larger guy just takes it every time. He also makes no effort to hide his face or anything. In reality, a tall scrawny Frenchman would stand out like a sore thumb and the cops would have no problem in nabbing him if he tried even a couple of such adventures.
That character I personally thought this was even worse than the 2002 Jean Claude Van Damme film of the same name.
reply share
I have to disagree- although, it goes without saying, your opinion is as valid as mine. Cassell has always struck me as an incredibly intense guy- his performances in Irreversible, La Haine and indeed this film exude menace......small or not, he's not a guy I'd wish to tangle with physically. Still, that you see him differently is somewhat interesting- shows how sometimes there is no right or wrong interpretation, I guess. On the film overall however-whilst I enjoyed it on a superficial level- I'm more in agreement with you. Could've been a lot better, and the ending was simply too far fetched.