rmjstudio-16648
If you prefer your movies that have a broken time line, That jump from post time to pre time, with no context. This maybe for you.I deleted the move before the 2nd act. As the Director, tried too much to do a "dusk till dawn" And had no clue how to edit.CLue #1 CONTEXT! As you learn in school which was fully missed here - Less is more.!
Jim
Thriller with Pulp Fiction type of flashbacks.Three hot chicks are sent on a heist. Lot's of violence. Turns out tragically as several innocent people are killed. There is a tense three-way standoff that explodes.In the end, there is only one survivor who drives away in a daze. Replaying in her mind the events leading up to the bloodbath.Bruce Willis is the evil gang boss. As usual, Whittaker does too much talking. Very watchable Malin Akerman, Nikki Reed and Deborah Ann Woll.To be honest, the three lovely ladies are the main reason to watch this movie.
Shawn Gordon (gordytheghoul)
Aaron Harvey, the writer and director of Catch .44 wants to be Quentin Tarantino so bad that he has transformed himself into a zeroxed black & white copy of the great man. Evident by this film, which barely was given a theatrical release last winter and is now out on DVD and blu-ray to sucker unsuspecting poor souls who are going to say, well it's got Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker in it, how bad can it be. Trust me, it can be bad, it can be real bad.One of the executive producers is David Willis, can you guess who's brother this is. I suspect that David got on board this picture, and brother Bruce did him a solid by appearing in it, thus not only giving the movie credibility which it did not deserve, but also attracting other name actors. It should be noted though, that Willis is not the film's star despite what the marketing tries to convince you of, in fact, he has a rather small role. At least it can be said, he has the movie's best role, which still falls short of memorable.Filled with lots of lackluster dialogue used in long uninteresting speeches, filtered with endless profanities, used by lowlife characters. This picture knows what it wants, to be a Tarantino film, just doesn't have the slightest idea of how to achieve it. The movie begins in a diner, is filled with flashbacks, has grindhouse style cuts and fade-outs, and even goes for a cool/hip ironic post modern sense of humor, evident in a scene where characters listen to a old cassette tape of Bruce Willis music from the 80's, ho ho. Filled to the gills with unresolved loose ends and dead ends. If this is all too much for me to stand, and I have a pretty high tolerance for this sort of stuff, I really pity the poor soul that rents/buys this thing believing that, well it has Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker in it, how bad can it be. You've been warned.
Zero Dark
...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.
