plain_jane_jones "Sometimes first instincts are wrong"I walked into a Blockbuster with my mom & we saw Morgan Freeman's face taking up most of the cover of this one. I believed that the rule of movie covers is that actors with more than 5 minutes of on screen time have their pictures placed on the cover. I think about that twice now when I rent a movie. My mom loves Morgan & I thought he was awesome in "The Shawshank Redemption" & "Bruce Almighty" but I was a little skeptical about this one. Straight to video movies are tricky that way. To this day I have no idea what the point to this movie was or why Morgan Freeman even bothered being in the biggest waste of celluloid since "Manos: The Hands of Fate". Perhaps he did it as a favor. Basically all he does is put his head against a doll he's holding & fail to convince a guy to come out of his apartment. I wonder how much they paid him to do that? I could do that. There was violence in this "film" but no blood. How can that be explained? A little girl was sitting at the top of a slide, got shot, & slid down the slide dead. There was no bullet hole & there was no blood streaked down the slide. A guy was stabbed in prison, & there was no blood on whatever it was that stabbed him (can't remember) & no blood on his orange jumper. Another guy shot himself in the head. No blood & his funeral was open casket. 1st of all, I thought that when someone gets shot in the head, they can't have an open casket funeral. I might be wrong but that would be gross. 2nd of all, if they decided to sew that area shut (which wouldn't make a bit of sense but then again this movie didn't make sense) his face still would've been a mangled mess. The complete absence of blood in a movie rated "R" for violence & other stuff wasn't even the worst of it. The dialogue was horrible & I couldn't even understand what was being said most of the time. It could've been the crappy sound or the actors mumbling through their lines. If you want to be a filmmaker or an actor, take a look at this & "Manos" to see how a movie shouldn't be done. 0/10

cmohan I rented this movie only because of Morgan Freeman. Having seen movies like Outbreak and Se7en, this is totally disgusting.Are they talking about Gangs? Drugs?...Nothing...Morgan freeman should think before lending his name to these kind of films though he comes only in 4, 5 scenes.I had to fast forward (X16) for most of the scenes. There is also a utterly indecent bed scenes and a cabaret which most of us would feel disgusting.I would rate a 1/10 for this movie..

stoneage57 I only rented the movie because Morgan Freeman was in it and it turns out he wasn't really in it at all. He should be ashamed to associate his name with this trashy effort - I can't even call it a movie. It is a shame I can no longer associate Morgan Freeman with quality films without first checking reviews. Thanks for the opportunity to trash this stinker. The doggie style scenes did it for my grown up daughter. It was the final straw in an already straw ridden catastrophe.

ladyaurora If you can call it that. We rented this film from our television company because of Morgan Freeman. Should have realised something was wrong when there was no preview for the film. However, we thought, Morgan Freeman, great actor. The only thing he's been in recently that stank was DreamCatcher. Pretty safe bet. We sat through over 20 mins of this piece of drivel before we couldn't take it anymore. My step-son was being punished, no TV or movies. Even he was eager to go back to his punishment after that 20 mins. That's gotta say something.