Fuga da Morte

We've become accustomed in expecting a sub-par B-grade film when Bruce Willis (PLEASE retire!) is cast, but this one is by far one of the worst.

I get that director Mike Burns and writer Bill Lawrence are newb filmmakers, but this felt like a failed high school drama class production.

The dialogue was atrocious. Literally the entire first half of the film could've been cut down to 10 mins max. The scenes were too long, and/or unnecessary, and most were just plain ridiculous. There was a hefty lack of logic, with major plot and technical issues, and you'll find yourself either laughing or cringing at most scenes.

The pacing was horrible, and with the majority of the story being cheesy af, the normally comfortable 95 min runtime felt like 3+ hours. You'll be tempted to fast forward much of the film, and trust me, you wont miss much. Only the last 15 mins of the film felt like an adequate film production with good continuity in the scenes, and some decent drama and suspense, albeit predictable.

And what was Burns thinking with probably the worst cinematography I've seen in a long time? Were blue and earth-tones the only color filter palette choices? There's a scene when Willis arrives and greets his niece at the cabin, and all that stands out is her bright blue jeans in the entire scene. And the constant distant shots of the skyline, valleys and hills got very tiring fast.

The acting for the most part was bad and unconvincing - I'm sure in part due to Burns' inexperience in directing his cast, and Willis was his usual drab "I'm only here for the paycheck". Only Jaime King's performance was good and convincing throughout, and she basically carried the entire film.

The only decent component in this production was the score, which although still the typical B-film loud and overbearing score, it at least was somewhat fitting and wasn't playing through-out the entire 95 mins. But then again, this is Burns' main field of expertise in the film industry - music director, so had he messed that up, he'd have some 'splaining to do. The soundtrack was also fairly decent, although it played in many scenes that didn't really need loud country/rock music playing in the background.

It's a very generous 3/10 from me, mostly for King's performance, and also cutting the newb filmmakers some slack. Hopefully they learn from their mistakes.

This movie is in a word, awful. The acting, editing and story are all amateur. If that's not enough, you have the pleasure of seeing Lala Kent (yes that's a first name) and Kelly Greyson who have botoxed faces and injected lips. Yay, love looking at that.

The storyline itself not only has been done before, but is so shallow you already know what's going to happen in the first 10 minutes. Aside from the typical dumb mistakes you always see characters making in poorly written movies, often you can't help wondering why you're still watching the same scene. That's because the editing was just as amateur as the story writer.

If that's not enough, this morass of bungled scenes is complimented by a soundtrack so shoddy and unskilled you'll be looking around the room to see if this is truly happening. Together, it was truly an unbearable movie to watch.

Then there's Bruce Willis, who's selling out to anyone as fast as Nicholas Cage. Is the guy broke or what? Otherwise, he sure must need to act so bad that he's willing to participate in this garbage. It's easy to point at "A Good Day to Die Hard" as the beginning of his demise, but it actually dates all the way back to Hudson Hawk.

It wasn't just that the feature film cost $70M to make and only grossed $17M, but how Willis took over the movie project with his ego running amok. In short, Willis drove it into the ground. The movie was so bad that during the screening, Andi McDowell was concerned if she'd ever work again.

After the critics completely roasted it, Willis went back to his trusted formula of "Die-Hard everyman". What's more, as he fell off the A-list actor list, he not only doubled-down on the same John McClane personna, but he prolifered the same worn shallow image across myriad artless films, like this one.

Lastly, I guess director Mike Burns believe that because has experience as Music Supervisor on several movies, he can direct. Same for writer Bill Lawrence who only has one movie to his credit. And while R. J. Cooper does have a fair amount of editing experience, it certainly didn't reflect well in this movie given how many scenes were overshot. Same for Burn's participation in the soundtrack which as 'amateur hour' as anything else.

Hard to understand what possesses these people to think they can make even reasonable movies. The fact they pick botox stars probably reflects their entire overall judgment. End result is a great example of pure garbage.

To say it bad is not doing it true justice. When you think it can't get any worse, it does and continues to get worse with every scene. Even a score of One is too generous for this garbage.

This feels like it is an inside joke attempting to be as awful as possible. Just the scenes.... Constantly like what are you doing? No serious team could put this together like this without trying just to mess with people. But if they were, whatever they were trying to do turned to crap. The most confusing scenarios and action possible.

What an embarrassing low point for Bruce Willis.

This is utter crap & looked like it was made on a camcorder.

Even worse than Steven Seagal's Direct-to-dvd films.

Absolutely TERRIBLE in every possible way.