Meu Ofício é Matar

I loved the situation. A small town, frustrated ex-military cop. But then the movie goes downhill pretty quickly. Story does not move at all. The end seems to be rushed. Climax is really tepid. Predictable and flat dialogs, the characters, especially the villains are not described in enough details. It feels like the director gave up halfway through the movie.

I loved the situation, a small, sleepy, snowy town. But the rest was totally so-so. The story had a great potential. It is sad to see it being wasted like this. The 1954 original was much better.

The actors also did not do justice. Liotta was just OK not very convincing. Erin Karpluk was good. Pidge and his grandpa were better. The rest of the actors were bad.

"Today is a glorious day. Today I get to kill the President." Barren (Purcell) has become disillusioned with the President and his policies. He devises a plan that will help deal with his problem. Him and his accomplices pose as secret service agents and take up a position in a family's house that has the perfect sniping position. When a local cop (Liotta) shows up Barren's perfect plan starts to unravel. Uwe Boll's trademark seems to be lame movies with poor acting but decent action. This one had both. The movie itself isn't really that terrible but it is also fairly generic and predictable. There have been many movies about trying to stop a presidential assassin and I usually like movies with that plot. I did like this one too but it's not one of the better ones and I don't think I would watch this again. I have not seen the original with Frank Sinatra but I would guess that one is better. I could be wrong though. Overall, nothing terrible but nothing amazing either. I give it a C+

Some movies just shouldn't be remade. I gave this film a 2 star rating because I did watch to the end. I like the actors, but they can't make up for poor script revision and direction. It also doesn't help that they took what is largely a dialog film and tried to add too much action. My advice go to YouTube and watch the original (B&W not colorized). Frank Sinatra, Sterling Hayden and James Gleason carried the movie with style. Direction by Lewis Allen was excellent. The original pulls all the pieces together better. I don't want to put any spoilers in, so I'll simply say that there was no reason to change Todds' character. And Pidge played better as a kid than a teenager.

I never saw Lewis Allen's "Suddenly" (1954), but I guess I just don't need, because I know a priori that it is an Oscar-winning film comparing to this atrocious remake made by an unskilled, dull and inept director that, besides being labeled as a movie-killer by making abominable, heretic and unintelligible movies, still get millions to produce plain pointless excrement.

Nevertheless, I swallowed an aspirin and, maybe taken a bit away to the fact Boll's last movie drew some fair critics, I finally had the courage to assist a movie made by this European quarreling psyche. Unfortunately my expectations weren't wrong at all: It was like to have an urge to commit suicide or to mutilate myself for being an utterly idiot.

Boll's cinematic masterpieces, according to him, 'Alone in the Dark', 'House of the Dead' and 'Far Cry' are all, cemented by virtually 90% of critics and spectators, a collection of rambling-disjointed narratives of absurdity, execrable directing, vile and poorly written scripts and an unbelievable populist egocentric paranoia product of a tormented mind.

This movie, for which it was presented with established actors, fails miserably in achieving something other than a mind-blowing overly median hogwash.

I really must go out and buy the original movie to make a sincere topic comparison and eventually assert righteously that Uwe Boll must pay in prison terms for brain damage to the public and serious technical incompetence. Even with Liotta and Purcell on the screen the movie drags on into a worn out monosyllabic clichéd and putrid dialog.

The story of 3 assassins posing as secret agents who find an excellent sniper spot (a house) to murder the US president is tantalizing enough to draw a good script, but with Uwe Boll, that's not the case: For Boll it seems the only person to sense something about the fake agents is an alcoholic, self-neglecting and psychically affected and sacked ex-marine who can't cope with his friend death years and years ago. Brilliant!

I really think there's not much more to say unless citing all the mumbo-jumbo and mediocrity that abounds in this Boll's vision of a film. Ultimately, dare me to advise you to spare your limited lifetime and patience and skip this for real - You won't regret, I CAN assure 100%.

PS-> Another priceless story is how I ended up seeing this "piece of art". - But please don't ask me to, I cannot tell, Boll can lawfully sue me or else invite me for a matching box until K.O.

OK, I agree that movie is a real Junk one, I agree at one hundred percent, but a cool Junk. I did not expect more from Uwe Boll. Although most of the movies he made did not disappointed me that much. I know that he is not an ambitious film maker, nothing to do with the likes of John McTiernan or Michael Mann. But I always enjoy the films he gives us. If you dare comparing this feature with the genuine one, made in the fifties by lewis Allen, of course you'll run away from it. Sure. But, please, compare what is comparable. Performances are OK for me. I know I repeat myself, but from this kind of feature, don't expect so much, don't expect grade Academy Awards performances. I appreciated the lead bad guy, Irak vet sitting with the American flag on his knees. I loved this sequence. Yes, I am fond of Uwe Boll, despite the fact he is a lousy director for most of the audiences.