Catch .44

Quentin Tarrintino. There, I said it. I got it out the way straight away. It's just you can't really talk about Catch 44 without mentioning the man in some way. Catch 44 is so 'Pulp Fiction inspired' that you'll be expecting Samuel L Jackson to pop up in a gimp mask at any time.

Instead of a predominantly male cast, Catch 44 centres on three female drug smugglers and what happens when one of their (supposedly routine) drop-offs goes very wrong. That's about the extent of the plot. I've read in other reviews phrases like 'the film stretches a single scene out for the entire ninety minutes.' And they're not far off it.

The whole film is - technically - set in a diner (the location for the illegal exchange). What other parts of the film come in flashbacks and repeats of the initial scene, over and over again. This has picked up more than a little criticism from some as being repetitive and annoying.

I didn't think it was that bad. Granted, Catch 44 is no Pulp Fiction, but I found it entertaining enough to watch for an hour and a half. One thing you should know is that Bruce Willis (despite featuring heavily on all major advertising) is in it for about ten minutes. The story is mainly about the girls. Forest Whitaker does his best to inject some much-needed characterisation, but really, the lack of any forward momentum is the film's major downfall.

My advice: know what you're getting. This is no masterpiece, but it's not quite as bad as some of the reviews make it out to be. It just could have been a lot better, based on the star-power that seemed to be attached to the project.

The movie jumps around in time, starting close to the end of the story then jumping back to give a little back story then back forward and back again and forward... The back and forth is an interesting way to tell the story and it keeps you watching for a while. But by the time they replay the same scene for the fourth time, you're asking yourself, "why do I care whats happening?" None of the characters really stand out as interesting, as we've all seen these characters before. By the end I was wondering, "where is this even going?" The end result... nowhere. Unremarkable as a whole but with a deeper back story and more substance it could have been better.

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.

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.

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.