Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

I'd challenge the other reviews here to a battle of wits, but they seem to be unarmed. :3 (The best lines in this movie sneak in there casually...)All the comments here (both positive and negative) that discuss only the literal dialogue/plot interactions seem to be overlooking that besides being a gritty noir populated with strange individuals, the characters are acting out a moral commentary on original sin.Whether you were able to predict what would be in the bag is not nearly as important as the question represented by the bag itself: Should you open it? Bite the apple? Gain knowledge and take responsibility for the consequences?There is a line about the value of allegiance being more than what John's character is getting for it, and the content of the bag (and the degrading aspect of his blind loyalty) is literally the cost of his greed. In no uncertain terms.Da Costa's character's love for Israel is not a quirky random comment - it's your clue-in to her representation of Eve (which follows shortly after the more pointed comment about "making Adam watch"...). Jack and Rivka are the only two characters here who show any humanity - empathy - so surely they are the parallels for humanity, Adam and Eve, in this dangerous and imperfect world.Meanwhile, what does De Niro represent? "What are you doing in public without your horns?" Da Costa remarks at a later point. This implies the devil, and yet his role in creating the whole environment the story takes place in (and establishing the bag scenario) is more like to that of god, creating the garden and yet including this invitation to "disaster" that is temptation in the form of the tree - the bag. Is opening the bag/biting the apple a sin, or is it means of empowerment?Wouldn't to obey perfectly and choose ignorance be to disappoint the potential of the human model? This is where De Niro's condescending comments about Pavlovian loyalty come in.What one "ought" to do depends on what is wanted by "god" from humanity: if "god" wanted a predictable/trustworthy tool then curiosity is a negative (biting the apple/opening the bag is a sin); if "god" wanted entities competent in handling free will, then the point of the test was, in fact, to break the rules for the sake of overcoming ignorance and avoiding purveying evil negligently. Delivering the bag without opening it causes a kind of "blank check" moral accountability - because you contributed while consciously choosing not to be aware of the content you were propagating. De Niro's "caveat emptor"... not checking the moral goods you're becoming responsible for is on you. You're still responsible, because the ignorance was intentional. To act with intentional ignorance is negligence.Then, there at the end, she is genuinely sorry for her curiosity, knowing it will cost them, and yet Jack's commitment at that particular moment is a confirmation that we *should* be curious. To bite the apple is to learn, to learn is to take responsibility, and to take responsibility is to reach for your humanity.John's character remarks, "you know we're going to die." What else would be the consequence of going against god? And yet I would argue that De Niro was meant to represent a false god (whether the perspective should be that all gods are false - rationalization for avoiding wrestling with responsibility for morality - I won't conclude) but there is a definite "man behind the curtain" feeling that emerges. Without spoiling any specifics, when things get more heated, De Niro's character threatens to destroy the whole world in which the story has turned - the motel. Is this the perceived threat of killing our religious allegiances (or any established power)? The threat of an uncertain outcome that intimidates us away from claiming responsibility. To challenge god and be wrong can cost us more than our own lives - it can implicate the lives of others. But our greed has already cost as much, and with less purpose.The implications can be extended to the viewer him/herself: Choosing to just demand our pay (as Jack does repeatedly) to continue living in our own bubble, for ease/convenience/laziness, can be a form of greed as costly as any other. To think we can live in comfort without moral culpability just by "minding our own business" while others suffer is greed. Almost a greed for peace - we are not willing to disturb the peace of our conventional routines to acknowledge the suffering of others. Which, we have a moral responsibility to do - to learn what is being done in our name by national proxy and deal with the responsibility, though it might cost our convenience and our hollow pride - it might be the death of our plastic bubble lives. Takes courage to open the bag.

As the title suggests, it's all about the bag, a mystery bag. An interesting angle of storytelling. It was a good mystery, though they did not get it right. The plot line had all the ingredients, but while developing it, they had lost the way. I was not impressed with the writing and also the direction. It is engaging with a fine pace, but visually all the crucial film scenes looked so flat or comparable with other classic films. More or less, everything is predictable, except the end twist.This is a one day tale. Most of the film takes place in one night with full of mixup and going after the truth. A gangster boss hires a hit-man for an important job that he must safeguard a bag till he arrive to get it in an isolated motel. During waiting for his boss, the bag man goes through unexpected events which eventually taking many turns, that comes to an end with a twist. With the limited cast, everyone got a fair share of screen.The actors like Cusack and De Niro are the advantage, but this is not an ideal film for such actors. Lately they and many other aged actors are into such films. So it is expected, but not expected to fail all their attempts. This film was okay, if you are not looking for a masterpiece thriller. Can be watched once, but instantly forgettable film. So film like this cannot be recommended, but if you decide to watch, don't expect anything other than just an entertainment or timepass. That is what it is good at.4.5/10

Another one of those movies that barely gets a theatrical release you find on-demand, "The Bag Man" stars John Cusack in another fine performance as a hit man, who goes against his boss, played by Robert DeNiro. I noticed that DeNiro is looking very much like Hollywood legendary producer, Robert Evans, in this. Now DeNiro had co-starred in the 1997 film "Wag the Dog" alongside Dustin Hoffman, who admitted he took his character's inspiration from Robert Evans, so I was wondering if maybe DeNiro was doing the same here- with the look of the character anyways?? Well, anyway, overall I found myself enjoying this little film. Without giving anything away, I did sorta predict the ending, however, the performances were decent enough I would recommend seeing this- especially for fans of Cusack.

A true oddity of a film that marks it near impossible to categorize, The Bag Man is bargain basement filmmaking at its most strange and oddly intriguing and a film that you can sense being added to the plethora's of cult movies marked "So bad it's so good" for make no doubt about it readers The Bag Man is a bad movie that still deserves to be checked out.With headliners in the form of the ever slumming it John Cusack and the increasingly stuck on auto pilot Robert De Niro there is no doubt that many viewers will check into this seedy joint expecting some high quality thrills and spills but they will find themselves surely disappointed with a tale that veers frequently between dark brutal violence, Lynch like abstract comical moments and a story that will keep you glued thanks to the human nature in all of us wanting to know just what is in the titular "bag" and what is Mr. De Niro's crime boss Dragna actually up to. The Bag Man's premise and execution are all wholly unbelievable yet it's all played and directed in such a way that it all works to a low level of entertainment.John Cusack and his humongous mullet have fun with a role that is all types of generic in the form of hit-man/sad sack Jack and relative newcomer Da Costa isn't completely wasted as street girl with a conscience Rivka but it's in the supports of Crispin Glover and De Niro that the film has some of its most wacky and memorable moments. Glover while not having abundant screen time makes the most of his wheelchair bound creepy motel owner Ned and De Niro gets to chew through some seriously over the top monologues as Dragna and even gets one of the more shocking acts of on screen violence in recent memory under his belt within the first 30 minutes of the film. There is also strange joyous quality's shown by director Grovic who masters proceedings like some movie class graduate having fun with bright lights and dim lit hotel rooms and forgetting to direct with any type of originality.The Bag Man is by no means a film worthy of rushing out to get but it's also a unique and frequently must see to believe strange journey filled with one eyed pimps, Croatian midgets, a hamming it acting great and a mysterious bag and all those elements ad up to a film that is worthy of a late night watch and no doubt a few laughs with a room full of film lovers.2 bad cases of road rash out of 5 For more movie reviews and opinions check into - www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com