The first half of the movie is genuinely suspenceful. The first time I watched this was on a crappy bootleg that stopped working halfway through. I thought that the critics were giving it a hard time after this. When I eventually finished it a few weeks later, I realized that they were right. And for a crappy action movie, the direction is surprisingly good. Asger Leth has a pretty good eye for action for someone whose only previous film was a documentary.

 

In general, the acting is crap. For starters, Elizabeth Banks is hilariously miscast as a detective who has a tragedy in her past. She's all wrong for the role. According to imdb, Amy Adams was sought after and considering how she has three Oscar nods, she may have made this work. Jamie Bell is annoying as Sam Worthington's brother and Genesis Rodriguez is on hand because she's hot and that's the only reason. And Edward Burns needs to realize that his strength is writing, not acting.

 

The script is an absolute mess. The characters are absolute morons, especially when Worthington tells Banks (a detective remember) that the ring that Bell proposes to Rodriguez with was stolen from David Englander. And she does nothing about it. And speaking of Worthington, he's as bad as usual here. I find it hilarious that his best performance was as a robot in Terminator: Salvation. He's not as bad here as he was in the Clash Of The Titans movies, but that's not saying much. Just as bad is Ed Harris, who, as a four time Oscar nominee, shouldn't have to be compared to Sam Worthington! He plays corrupt executive guy, David Englander and it's obvious that he's only here for the money.

 

Grade: D+

Sam Worthington is very Razzie-worthy. He's not really acting in this movie. He sounds like he's just reading the script. Worthington isn't even trying to hide his Australian accent. Elizabeth Banks is miscast as a cop who's negotiating with Worthington's protagonist. Banks does not sound like a cop at all. Genesis Rodriguez (I think that's her name) is just a wooden as Sam Worthington. The only (and obvious) reason Rodriguez is cast is because she's hot. Jamie Bell is also unconvincing as a burglar. 

Pablo F. Fenjves's screenplay is half-baked, and that's describing it nicely. It's full of dialogue that's either laughable (it's supposed to be serious) or just plain boring. The screenplay is something a six-year-old with a crayon could come up with. 

Asger Leth's direction sucks. He didn't seem to care that Sam Worthington's Australian accent keeps sticking out. Leth didn't even care that the supporting cast kept displaying wooden acting. 

Unless there are movies worse than this one in 2012, I'd say it's a likely Razzie contender!    

Looking at the two leads, Sam Worthington MIGHT be a contender if Wrath of the Titans is worse than Clash of the Titans [remake]. Elizabeth Banks has another 4 films coming in 2012. The most likely of them to be one of ours is What to Expect When You're Expecting. Because of its oversized Ensemble Cast, Movie 43 will either be make or break. I'd expect her more than Worthington to get RAZZED because she has more opportunity.  

BTW, HeadRAZZ: You still don't have your official take on this film. It doesn't even say "TEXT TO FOLLOW".

Ironically, the only reason I know of the film and decided to see it is because of word of mouth. I wanted to see films that were similar to What Ever Happened to Baby Jane and Wait Until Dark, and Lady in a Cage was among the list of recommendations. While I don't think the film is a classic or regarded by anyone as a classic, I think it certainly has more of a cultural impact on people than the forgettable B-movie you two make it out to be. If it was truly forgettable, I wouldn't even know the film existed, and, thus, wouldn't have seen it in the first place. Even compared to villains in films these days, I found the villains in Lady in a Cage to be quite sadistic and truly unlikable which, arguably, is a compliment for the film.

In this case, I don't think we need 200 RT reviews to evaluate it.  

Wow, haha. I didn't even realize it was that low on RT. Regardless, there are only 5 reviews there, which doesn't make it accurate compared to a film with more than 100 reviews. Ironic, since you always suggest to wait for a film to receive more than "2 positive reviews" in order to get an idea of how well the film is liked.

Well, there's a film called Lady in a Cage. I don't see what's wrong with titles like these.