IMDb > Catch .44 (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Catch .44
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Catch .44 More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
Index 73 reviews in total 

79 out of 106 people found the following review useful:

What a mess...

3/10
Author: traianracu
2 December 2011

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

80 out of 123 people found the following review useful:

Tarentino rip off

1/10
Author: RPRodgers-227-393604 from United States
1 December 2011

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

64 out of 95 people found the following review useful:

Jeebus, What A Mess

3/10
Author: messiercat from Oregon
1 December 2011

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

73 out of 114 people found the following review useful:

lose all hope

1/10
Author: tomgprs from United States
1 December 2011

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"?

Was the above review useful to you?

33 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Don't Fake IT

3/10
Author: bobbybits from United Kingdom
4 December 2011

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 film.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

A bad attempt at style over substance.

3/10
Author: jpurits-604-559217 from Canada
8 December 2011

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Slower-paced... just read below

6/10
Author: snakepaws from United States
6 December 2011

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

An interesting, slightly unfocused, yet entertaining movie

7/10
Author: dreamscape_11 from Canada
15 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It seems these days that megastar Bruce Willis has been somewhat relagated to direct to video releases, his hey day rapidly fading into the distance, not unlike other once big names (Val Kilmer, Eric Roberts). Some might see this. Unfortunate, but I think it gives him the opportunity to exercise his character acting talent, instead of purely playing the sarcastic, action hero template he has been set in. Here he plays the dodgy Mel, crime boss and Charlie to Deborah Ann Wolls, Nikki Reed, and Malin Ackerman's three angels.

The story itself is very unfocused, and very much like a less complex version of many other pulpy noir yarns, yet tries to a bit more intricate than it really is. But the story is only half of it, as the main thing we focus on here is Forest Whitaker's absolutely maniacally awesome performance as a demented, delusional scarface emulating psycho. He really steals the movie, but the three girls are just as good, and all have an excellent handle and delivery on the dialogue, sounding as natural and realistic as any of the babes from the acclaimed Death Proof.

One of the films strongest points is it's soundtrack, composed of eclectic, catchy and very unique tracks, by everyone from Bowie, to the raveonettes, to Willis himself.

Catch .44 may not be all that great composition wise or in terms of orifinality, but it packs a visceral punch and the atmosphere remains in your thoughts for a little while after, which is for sure what I look out for when assessing films. Not bad at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Could have been a new Pulp Fiction

6/10
Author: anders-kanten from Oslo, Norway
14 June 2012

This film had the potential to be the new pulp fiction, but it misses certain things. It got cool actors, a good plot and great music.

It is worth seeing, but the opening scenes made me hope for a super-great unforgettable movie, it was a little disappointing. The director borrows a lot from Tarantino and that is a good thing. I would like to see more speech action between the actors.

The ending could also have been a little more open.

Anyway, go see it. Cooler than a lot of other rubbish I have seen lately.

This director will probably make greater films in the future!

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Not bad

7/10
Author: mr-watson2006 from Romania
2 December 2011

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...

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 8:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history