The film story is pretty good apart from a pretty odd and under-sketched villain, but what is distracting is the poor quality of the dialogue.
It's a combination of badly recorded dialogue, likely with a lack of options, and amateur use of dialogue cleanup software.
In this case, ADR would have been better to replace the bad parts.
ADR is replacing on set dialogue with new dialogue recorded later in a studio or custom spaces to replicate sets after the film has been shot. If ADR isn't done well, it sounds terrible. The actor has to be good at it, and importantly, the dialogue sound engineer needs to know how to deal with it to make it sound like it was recorded in the environment we see on film.
For a feature, it's a time consuming process and you have to pay the actors more, so perhaps they didn't have the money for it on this film?
Sometimes directors don't like ADR, which is common. In this instance, hire a better sound recordist!
To explain the 'lack of options' term above, there are usually at least 2 microphones used to record actors lines. One is the boom which is often suspended over the actors heads, the other is the Lav which is hidden on the actors body as close to the mouth as possible.
Sometimes sound recordists stuff up Lav mic placement and all you get is scrapes and bumps from the clothes ribbing on the mic and the Lav recording becomes mostly unusable. You are then left with only the boom mic recording.
In noisy environments, boom mics can pick up as much background sound as dialogue, which is a pain and hard to edit. Here, digital audio cleanup software comes into play, and gets used to remove the background noise. If digital cleanup is done badly, you get the kind of dialogue quality which is present within too many shots in this film.
