Sans compromis

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.

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.

This film had the potential to be the new pulp fiction, but it misses certain things. It got cool actors, a good plot and great music.

It is worth seeing, but the opening scenes made me hope for a super-great unforgettable movie, it was a little disappointing. The director borrows a lot from Tarantino and that is a good thing. I would like to see more speech action between the actors.

The ending could also have been a little more open.

Anyway, go see it. Cooler than a lot of other rubbish I have seen lately.

This director will probably make greater films in the future!

Bad, bad, bad... It was a waste of time. The only thing that deserves attention is Forest Whitaker's play (versus the disappointing old Willis). But it wasn't enough to save the movie. The impression left is that this is trying to be a smart/modern/atypical movie. It kept on trying' all the time but, unfortunately, it never succeeded.

There are a lot of much better movies full of blood and empty of mind.

After the disaster named "The Evil Woods",it seems that Aaron Harvey tried to save his career as a director. He fails. And for me it's enough to avoid him and his..."operas" in the future...

It's such a pity that actors like Willis or DeNiro haven't played in a good movie for so long time...

Be smart and avoid this mess.

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.