Line of Duty

LINE of DUTY's plot is pretty standard fare, nothing terribly original. While there are one or two surprises, this film doesn't have the layers and complications it could easily have had. A lot of the nostalgia and sentiment regarding these four guys' life-long relationships with one another is contrived and badly acted, going too far in places, not far enough in others. The maudlin repetition of "One day does not define a man" kind of kills the point. To top it all off, the very generic title doesn't help much to distinguish this film. Still, the combination of shoot-'em-up cop vs. drug lord thriller and heartfelt soul drama is interesting and helps LINE of DUTY stand out a bit. The common dilemma regarding who're the good guys, who're the bad guys, is also very well-shown. Finally, the way it takes place in San Antonio instead of the usual LA or NYC is a nice touch.

Better acting by the main players would have helped this. Still, the four boys who play the central characters in their younger years did a fantastic job, as did some of the supporting cast, most notably Will Estes as "the Dealer."

Anyway, anyone who generally likes cop thrillers will probably find this worth watching and may even really love it.

Bad story line, should have shown more of how they got disconnected as friends.

Not a lawyer, but I pretty sure killing a fbi agent is a federal charge not state. There would have been enough evidence to arrest him, if Bobby was a agent he wouldn't have just left, he would have arrested him or shot him back. Why wouldn't the fbi scrub the brothers background also?

To many unrealistic things.

How did the cops get to the bar so fast when he was barely walking out, they through him in the car drove away without talking to anyone.

Just bad writing and bad acting from the actor playing Bobby.

Just a bad movie.

You just can't keep this going before you reach for the remote and then turn it off.

What can I say about Line of Duty? I always like to begin with something positive, but this is the first film I've ever reviewed where I could find nothing good to say.

This film ran and looked like what my kid brother and I used to shoot for fun when we were kids.

Seriously, this film just never comes together. There were some decent actors; for example Walter Perez gave it all he could to try to find depth in an otherwise two-dimensional, clichéd drug lord character, Jason. The problem was he was fishing in shallow water. And, whoever heard of a drug lord named Jason?

My question is, how did this film even get made? Weren't there checks and balances along the way that screamed, "CAUTION, CAUTION, STAY AWAY"? The script is the main problem, the directing and acting follows close behind, but I blame the people who paid for this film to even be produced. Did they know ANYTHING at all about film making before they jumped into the business? I guess there will always be foolish people with more money than sense who want to be in the movie-making business.

I think the best I can say about this film is that with a $2.5 million budget and only about a $77,707 take, it restores my faith in the movie-going public.

A good script can carry a lot of weight. A bad script, not so much. A script that insults your intelligence and makes the characters behave like they had just been lobotomized will doom any project.

This atrocity . . . I really have no words to describe it.

The fact someone read this script and decided to green light the film makes me think this was nothing more than a vanity project or a way to launder money. The actors had nothing to work with and because of that probably won't ever work again. That's a pity because they did what they could and they were OK. Still, if you handed Jack Nicholson or Julianne Moore your supermarket's weekly coupon circular, the end result may have been more enjoyable. I hope they get new agents-although the people who got them those roles either had vendettas against them or were negligent and inept and simply cannot be called "agents" in good faith.

If there was a good thing about this . . . Attempt at making a movie? . . . it is that it was short. Not short enough, as I found myself fast forwarding through parts of it, but since two-hour-plus-long movies that could have lost thirty or forty minutes and be better for it are becoming commonplace, an hour and forty minutes is a blessing.

They (and I don't want to know who they are lest I wake up with a horse's head next to me) had high hopes for the this monstrosity, as it is evident if you sit through part of the credits. May God have mercy on everyone's soul-except for whoever got this made. That person can burn in hell.