Damaged

A bit of a flop for me.

None of the characters seemed likeable, there was too much "accidental and forced" relationship drama that interrupted the storyline (which wasn't all that great to begin with), and there was no reason behind some of the character attributes. You'll see Samuel L. Jackson's character drinking constantly from scene one, so it's not a spoiler, but what does it add to the plot?

And speaking of Jackson, here's a good double standard for you: The retirement age for ANY Chicago cop is 63 and yet Samuel L. Jackson is 75. But somehow Leonardo DiCaprio caught hell for being too old for his role in "Killers of the Flower Moon." Now, I love both these guys--but Jackson gets a free pass because???

Oh dear. I am not sure which high school drama class was responsible for this travesty of a movie but it is unquestionably one of the worst films I have seen in the past decade. An absolutely ridiculous script with terrible acting. This abomination relies on loud scary sound effects, ominous music and recurring dismembered body parts in an effort to retain the viewer's attention or attempt to have some sort of cinematic relevance. There are no redeeming qualities to this film, it fails on all fronts - even the car chase actions seems are sophomoric and absolutely laughable - like the college kids who produced this disaster were excited to get their hands on an Audi and Beemer for the weekend. Incredibly bad.

This movie has so many possibilities but poor direction and some editing flaws the overall experience. It is a perfect example where a "big name" is used just to boost a story or production. I feel for Samuel Jackson here, as he should be awarded for his tenacity and perseverance during this stumbling-along story

Don't get me wrong - there are other notable performances too, but they don't get the credit they deserve - it is all about using SJ's persona. It is a real pity, but this is not the only movie that has used this trait

As for the story itself - well written and executed although the surprise element was a little obvious towards the middle of the movie. The storyline could have done with some punch here and there to counter the slow burning and sometimes awkward watching experience (I fell asleep twice)

For the editing - well, this trait of leaving some scenes hanging for three or four seconds longer than necessary is not doing the experience any good. When a scene tells its story, MOVE ON!

The directing is OK although some scenes make you wonder why? Perhaps creating goofs on purpose? The murder scenes are rather irritating from a factual point of view. They are TOO obviously fake and the prop guys could have done so much more to make the scenes more accurate and believable. Using SJ they could have learnt from "7even" a bit

Overall just a popcorn-Saturday-rainy-night movie.

I couldn't say why the writers wanted Samuel L Jackson in Scotland. Possibly Gianni Capaldi, one of the three writers and co-star, simply wanted to meet him.

A local Scottish detective (Capaldi) has a US cop (Jackson) help with a case due to the similarity of some murders in the States. He then enlists the help of a Frenchman (Cassel) and former colleague who happens to be in London and the unlikely trio attempt to solve the mystery as more murders occur.

The premise is implausible. Jackson phones in his performance. Foreboding moments are neon signs. The twists and ending are unsatisfying.

There are a couple of good performances from Laura Haddock and Kate Dickie as the wife of the Scottish detective and detective Kessler respectively but they by no means lift the film above average.

It really was an unsatisfying conclusion. In itself the reason for the review.

I think the storyline could actually have been made into a decent movie but in the end they managed to produce one of the worse movies I have ever seen. I normally do a good job of managing to avoid really bad movies by I was lured in by the Aish list cast and the synopsis and ended up watching this without looking at IMDB first. I started off wondering why a Scottish policeman carried around a gun but by the end, the direction and the editing had been so poor that in the end I didn't care what happened. I did manage to guess who the baddy was but only because it couldn't really have been anyone else.