Kirpianuscus But surprising . for the presence of Michael Douglas in a thriller who has the virtue to remind - for location and hunting - old western but it has a terrible sin - its end. a film without huge ambitions. but it is well made and that saves all. the other good points - the duel between Douglas and Jeremy Irvine, the tension, the portrait of an egocentric business man and a brave , honest young man. so, a decent thriller.

juanmuscle I mean Michael plays some dark angel of death in the latter half and in the beginning he plays a business savvy sociopath with zero feelings, not much of a stretch but really parallels the dichotomy very well. I guess you really have to be an insensitive jerk to really enjoy having either one of those characteristics define your persona. Personally, I thought Mr. Douglas really enjoyed acting like he was acting like a jerk, so makes me wonder, lol, jk... (What a really cool thespian!) But man was this a cool premise, makes me think what would I have done. I mean here is a guy with all the wherewithal in the world do do almost whatever he likes yet entrammelled somewhither wholly out of his element with his nemesis, a really sweet angel who can't be bought out, (save the cash advance in the beginning), but we all fall, then later sees the error of his ways and begins his penitent journey back to reconcile with his good true nature. If Michael's character was ever any good and just simply sold out or are some people just born "not all there" as he refers to Charlie, who knows... You kind of get an impression that if Charlie accidentally shot someone he would make amends within the boundaries of the law without skipping a humdrum beat. The theme really hits home when it comes to never really being able to truly give yourself wholly to the nonce such that we might make a start to enjoy what we have, whether copious or a miserly dearth.

LeonLouisRicci Michael Douglas has been in His Share of Clunkers Over His Long and Varied Career. But Here He Literally Made This One, He was the "Money Man" Behind it and Helped its Appeal by Appearing in This Two Character Study that is Big on Scenery and Clichéd Stereotypical Characters that are of the Income Inequality Variety.This Isn't Awful, the Story Itself is Timeless Like the "Previously Underwater" Sprawling Environment. Of Course Douglas Playing a Soulless Sob Who Literally Takes a Pee on Nature. He Drives a Half-Million Dollar Car and "Sports" a Wonder Weapon to Shoot One of His Wall Trophies, a Mountain Ram.Things Go Sideways from the Start as He Hires Jeremy Irvine to be His Guide and Then Promptly Forces Him to Strip to His Undies (listening Girls) and the Chase is On. A Competent Time Filler with Enough Concern for Social and Ethical Issues and an Ending that Everyone Hates. You Can't Really Hate the Movie Because it is Well Done. It's Just Mediocre Movie Making that Has an Appeal but a Limited Appeal at Best.

leonblackwood Review: What a terrible, pointless movie! I'm usually a fan of Michael Douglas films but this one just didn't make any sense to me. He plays a wealthy trophy hunter called Madec, who goes to the Mojave desert to hunt. He hires an experienced young tracker, Ben (Jeremy Irvine) and while they are walking around to find there prey, Madec let's of a shot which kills someone. Madec then starts to panic and he offers the tracker loads of money to keep quiet because he is in the process of closing a big deal and he doesn't want anything to damage his reputation. Whilst deciding what to do with the body, Ben tries to make a distress call to his headquarters which makes Madec angry and he goes to extreme measures to embarrass the boy. He makes him walk through the desert in his shorts, with no water or food and he uses him as a hunting tool by continuously shooting at him. This is were the storyline really didn't make any sense to me. If he wanted him dead, he had loads of chances to shoot him. If he didn't want to shoot him, he could have just left him in the desert to die. I really didn't see the point of the whole movie because Douglas started to get angry because the boy was finding caves with food, water and clothes. So my question remains, why didn't he just kill him. The ending was completely ridiculous because Madec could have easily hired a hit-man to kill Ben with all of his wealth. Anyway, I'm not going to pick out all of the sketchy parts of the script because this film is really not worth the time and effort. For a Michael Douglas movie, the box office takings were also appalling and I personally thought that the performances were also pretty bad so it's really has to go down as a bad day at the office. Disappointing!Round-Up: Michael Douglas, 71, has been at the top of the movie game for some time, so it's surprising when he stars in a low budget, straight to DVD movie, which he hasn't done in some time. He recently starred in Ant-Man, which happens to be the highest grossed movie that he has ever been in, with a whopping $410million at the box office, before it's DVD release. Basic Instinct, Fatal Attraction and Disclosure are also big money earners for Douglas and I doubt that you will be surprised to know that this movie is his lowest grossed movie of all time. He's only made around 45 movies in his career which have grossed over $3Billion at the box office and he's due to star alongside Orlando Bloom, John Malkovich, Toni Collette and Noomi Rapace in Unlocked, so he can put this terrible movie behind him. This is the first English speaking movie from director Jean-Baptiste Leonitti. Although I been slating film, I think it's a combination of things that made it a disaster, so I won't totally put the blame on him. After reading the script, I'm surprised that Michael Douglas went ahead with the project because the whole thing needed a rewrite. Budget: N/A Worldwide Gross: $282,000I recommend this movie to people who are into their thrillers starring Michael Douglas and Jeremy Irvine. 2/10