Seth_Rogue_One
When it started I was wondering a bit why it was rated so low, because I thought it was watchable at least.But when the second half started that became painfully obvious.The movie starts out as sort of a illegal street-fighting movie but with armored vest shooting at each other instead of boxing and kicking each other.And it builds itself up to make you think that it's gonna get more and more intense as it goes on, so the second half is so anticlimactic it's not even funny.It turns into some wannabe philosophical wonderings drama movie instead, and it has one of the most abrupt endings I've seen in a long while which literally made me ask 'seriously?' out loud to the TV-screen.And in the end I have no idea what the movie was trying to say or why it was even made in the first place.So yeah definitely not recommended, to the Mickey Rourke fans I'd like to point out that he doesn't show up until the last 9 minutes.
Damien Bostian
Overall a decent and entertaining movie, as long as you employ "Suspension of Disbelief," but I'll leave the technical critique for the end. It was good to see Kwaten again (the main character's brother, "Jason," from "True Blood") and for the limited number of lines he was given, he was convincing. The concept of the film itself is interesting, and although the plot wasn't fully developed, it does have inertia. Other stars: Freida Pinto was great, and particularly gorgeous in this, but if you're seeing this movie because of Mickey Rourke's on the billing, don't - he's in about 4 minutes of it.Technically flawed: The movie's central plot of a dueling circuit essentially relies on all the fresh-off-the-street competitors to be perfect shots, whilst quick drawing and firing rapidly, which would be a difficult task for even a top tier competition marksman under that kind of pressure (but not as absurd as "The Walking Dead" in that regard). On a similar note, many of the "fighters'" gun choices would go through the vests the others use, especially when they lack trauma plates (and why would they NOT use trauma plates???), but again, this can all be filed under "overly critical" and put aside in the viewer's mind. (That's not a spoiler, one example is seen at minute 3 when someone has a Desert Eagle, and it was also glimpsed in the trailer).
anne-ominous
No spoilers. Just an old reference.When I was younger, there was a thing called a "shaggy dog story".This movie has A LOT going for it. It has good character development, for example.Good basic plot.Good (although each mostly simple) complications to the plot.Some elements of the action were never adequately explained.But in the long run: too many things were not explained in the context. Many things seemed to happen with no rational motivation behind them.They all did lead to the end... but not in any logical manner.So, then comes the climax..."Shaggy dog story".
leereddy
This is not a very good film. Straight to the point, eh? It's about people who stand in a small circle clad in bulletproof vests who then proceed to draw guns and shoot each other in an underground gunfighter/duel type thingy. Bets are placed, money exchanged etc, etc.It's at one of these bizarre events we met John and Colt, our films leads, who hit it off an embark on a road trip of sorts.The film tries hard to aspire to some kind of gunslinger noir but with little plot and thinly drawn characters it all feels a bit contrived. On the plus side one of the films leads, Colt is played by the stunningly beautiful Freida Pinto so there's that at least, and it's cinematography is pretty tidy too. There's also a late appearance from Mickey Rourke,a truly gifted actor but his appearance now a days must surely frighten children and his cameo is rather naff. On the whole this picture is attempting to be cool and moody but it just all feels a bit hackneyed and trite.
AD
