|Page 1 of 8:||       |
|Index||80 reviews in total|
Bad, bad, bad... It was a waste of time. The only thing that deserves
attention is Forest Whitaker's play (versus the disappointing old
Willis). But it wasn't enough to save the movie. The impression left is
that this is trying to be a smart/modern/atypical movie. It kept on
trying' all the time but, unfortunately, it never succeeded.
There are a lot of much better movies full of blood and empty of mind.
After the disaster named "The Evil Woods",it seems that Aaron Harvey tried to save his career as a director. He fails. And for me it's enough to avoid him and his..."operas" in the future...
It's such a pity that actors like Willis or DeNiro haven't played in a good movie for so long time...
Be smart and avoid this mess.
I can only assume that the principles involved needed a paycheck, and
the producers had enough on hand to have Forest Whitaker and Bruce
Willis climb on board this train wreck. What began to sour me was the
obvious Tarantinoesque use of banter, only between vapid Southern Cal
airheads, and also the constant flashbacks, to try and set a sort of
moodiness. Attempt to get through the obnoxious dialog in the first
half hour without rolling your eyes and you're a far more stout film
goer than I am. Seiously, repeatedly do a scene 3 times? Now I'm a
forgiving kind of movie watcher, but something happened along the way
here that completely derailed this train, and I don't think anybody
quite knew what they were doing by two thirds of the way through. I'm
watching this effort online about three weeks before it's even released
in theaters. In DVD quality. Somehow I don't believe it's being
distributed to Academy members for Oscar consideration next spring. It
looks like it was all meant to enhance Malin Akerman's career.
The only reason it gets a few stars is Whitaker's energy. Extremely pathetic project. Avoid.
All the blood and gore of a Quentin Tarentino movie without the clever
dialog or interesting characters. I feel sorry for any actor who has to
deliver lines this insipid, forced and downright dull. I kept hoping
for a likable character or someone with a trace of moral fiber to show
up but it just never happened. I imagine if Tarentino had written,
directed, and cast this movie it would have been at least watchable. As
it is, though, this kind of imitation doesn't constitute any sort of
flattery whatsoever. If it were possible to do so I would advise
Quentin Tarentino to sue the makers of this film for stealing his style
without doing it any justice at all.
Bruce Willis is, as always, Bruce Willis. But they put some effort into making him appear repulsive and then give him very little to work with. Either in terms of some decent lines or actors who give him something to play off of.
If you absolutely have to see everything Bruce Willis does than you will have to sit through this movie. But that's the only reason I can think of for doing so.
I am only thankful that I have the option of turning off a film when my eyes begin to bleed. I have the feeling that Bruce Willis is either contractually obligated to make these films, or that he is desperate for work. I have been a big fan of Forest Whitaker for a long time and his performance is the only aspect of this nightmare on stilts that is not contemptible to the nth degree. Giving nothing away, let me just say that watching three airhead bimbos acting like tough guys for an hour and a half is an objective and honest summation of this "film". Willis has very minor scenes-where he is "less" than usual- and the rest is a haphazard mix of of terrible acting on the parts of our three "heroines". The actresses are all snotty and so dumb that it seems like the producers deliberately made a bloody gangster film for angry teenage drama queens. I do not mind ultra-violence, but targeting children - the way this movie seems to do- is reprehensible. Where are all the good writers. Why cant we put the art back into "blown apart"?
This whole film was just awful. 3 out 10 only because it had some
actors I would normally have enjoyed anywhere else apart from this
Forest Whittaker trying to be Tony Montana and sounding just awful while also changing his accent 3 or 4 times throughout this movie was pathetic. Bruce Willis with his shrivelled nuts grew old. This movie was a really awful attempt at a Quentin Tarantino that lacked in every aspect, from its poor dialogue, the realism, gangsters just don't act that way and its scenes. By the end of this movie, left feeling what a waste of time! Why do they honestly bother making this trash, as this movie certainly will not give them credibility or help them with their careers.
Don't fake it, was the only message in this film as it certainly was a compromise on any genuine attempt at making a movie.
From the beginning of the movie you can feel the director trying to
emulate Tarantino. Music to set the mood, catchy dialogue and time
scene cuts. Trying is the operative word here. Sadly, the mark was
missed on everything except the soundtrack, that was the only good
thing about this movie. The story was unbelievable with characters you
really do not care about, bordering on completely ridiculous towards
the end. The dialogue was horrible. And, was there a plot ? If there
was one then I definitely missed it.
A good soundtrack, bunch of cute girls, somewhat stylish cinematography and gun play does not make for a passable movie. In fact it makes it worse, because you try to enjoy it, try to find something redeeming about it and in the end just come away completely disappointed. That is not what the movie experience should be about.
Willis and Whitaker should bother to read the script before taking on any future movies. The only thing that I can imagine made them do this one is either they are desperate for work or they were doing a favor for a friend.
Do yourself a favor, go out and buy the soundtrack, you will get much better value for your money, and more enjoyment, than wasting your time watching this movie.
There's quite a few claims that this film is a Tarantino rip-off. People are saying the lines and acting are terrible, and even that it's the "worst movie ever," etc. First, this is FAR from the WORST movie ever. If you're in that boat, you're either being overly dramatic, or you really haven't seen many bad films. The acting isn't horrible, but you might cringe a few times - and don't expect any awards nominations. Where the film really falls short is the (lack of) character development. We don't really have a lot of reasons or get the chance to care about the characters or what happens to them. And no, Bruce Willis doesn't dominate the screen. This film does have a Tarantino-feel, but it's obviously not a Tarantino, nor does it sell itself as such. I honestly went into this with zero expectations other than seeing the beautiful Deborah Ann Woll in something other than True Blood - Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker being in the movie was a big, big plus. It's slower-paced and a bit predictable, but it's not bad. If you're expecting a fast-paced and/or "Tarantino brilliant" rehash of Die Hard-meets-Pulp Fiction/Reservoir Dogs, then you're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. You probably won't regret watching it, but there isn't anything too memorable about it either - save Whitaker's excellent Scarface-esque accent.
So I got to see Catch .44 the other day and I was curious what Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker were doing in the same movie...the conclusion was that Bruce wasn't doing much... He's the guy for the poster, who gets people in cinemas like the recent flow with Pacino ( The son of no one)and De Niro(Limitless), his part in the movie is of an evil Charlie with evil angels and his whole screen time is of 5 minutes tops. On the other hand there is Forest, Forest Whitaker who makes this movie much more entertaining then it really is, playing a No country for old men kind of character but really getting into the role and giving a really good performance. So the acting was good and the script was OK but my impression was that they could have done more if they had put more effort into it, it could have been great, and that's not a small thing for 2011... There isn't actually a lot to talk about, it had a little twist in the end which I liked but the ending is kind of given away if you pay attention to the movie so in the middle of the action you ask yourself how does it come to what I just saw...won't give away more because I don't want to spoil it for you. My recommendation is to see the movie because it's not a waste of time/money. I'm giving a 7/10 because of the wasted potential...
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Catch 44 lives in that lurid interzone of direct to video crime thrillers that have the budget for the bare boned minumum: guns, a few big name actors stopping b for a paycheck, and a hard boiled, often ludicrous tale of criminals, cops and sexy chicks knocking each other off for some unnatainable trinket of wealth. Here we meet three lively femmmes fatale: Malin Ackerman, Nikki Reed and Daredevil's Deborah Ann Woll, the angel's to Bruce Willis's Charlie, in this case a sleazy criminal kingpin named Mel. He tasks them with intercepting a mysterious package that passes through a lonesome truckstop diner. All hell breaks loose when the shotgun toting owner (Shea Wigham) takes them off guard, and blood is shed. From there it all spirals into a mess of chases, strange pseudo artsy setups and the entire cast hamming it royally as they essentially go nowhere fast. There's Forest Whitaker who seems to have wandered in from the loony bin, playing a psychotic Sheriff who switches up his accent from scene to scene until we realize we are sitting there watching an Oscar winner warble out a choppy Tony Soprano impression and have to chuckle at the absurdity of it all. Willis has fun doing his nonchalant smirk to kingdom come and sporting a soul patch that steals his scenes before he gets a chance. There's also an underused Brad Dourif as a confused highway patrolman who wanders in and out of the story. A lot of pulpy outings like this get accused of aping Quentin Tarantino's style, and while that is often a lazy, bullshit critic's cliché, here the claim is understandable and not necessarily a bad thing. The soundtrack is appropriately offbeat, the troubled of girls have a Death Proof type camaraderie and Willis Ambleside through his scenes with a verbosity reminiscent of Pulp Fiction. The story is a little haywire and one wonders what the ultimate outcome even means, but it sure has a ball getting there in violent, kooky fashion.
...create this account. Imagine my disappointment when finding that
there was no "0" grade. Ah. well. I suppose a "1" will have to do.
I don't blame the actors, I blame the writers, director, the DP, the editor, basically anyone who had something to do with the awful script and crappy visuals.
To call this a Tarantino ripoff would be an insult to Tarantino ripoffs.
I need seven more lines, but I can't think of anything else to say.
This movie doesn't deserve ten lines of text.
I hope all of the actors involved fired their agents.
Seriously, a Bruce Willis song?
"Hey, lets make a movie like Tarantino would, if he had no talent." - the people who made this piece of crap.
My favorite part of this movie was right before I pushed "play", before any hope of seeing a good film was dashed in the first five minutes of watching.
How did they get some of the actors to agree to be in this? I can only imagine blackmail or the kidnapping of loved ones was involved.
|Page 1 of 8:||       |
|Plot summary||Ratings||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|