There's quite a few claims that this film is a Tarantino rip-off. People are saying the lines and acting are terrible, and even that it's the "worst movie ever," etc. First, this is FAR from the WORST movie ever. If you're in that boat, you're either being overly dramatic, or you really haven't seen many bad films. The acting isn't horrible, but you might cringe a few times - and don't expect any awards nominations. Where the film really falls short is the (lack of) character development. We don't really have a lot of reasons or get the chance to care about the characters or what happens to them. And no, Bruce Willis doesn't dominate the screen. This film does have a Tarantino-feel, but it's obviously not a Tarantino, nor does it sell itself as such. I honestly went into this with zero expectations other than seeing the beautiful Deborah Ann Woll in something other than True Blood - Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker being in the movie was a big, big plus. It's slower-paced and a bit predictable, but it's not bad. If you're expecting a fast-paced and/or "Tarantino brilliant" rehash of Die Hard-meets-Pulp Fiction/Reservoir Dogs, then you're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. You probably won't regret watching it, but there isn't anything too memorable about it either - save Whitaker's excellent Scarface-esque accent.
107 Reviews
From 'Die Hard' to 'Try Hard'
bowmanblue22 February 2015
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.
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.
Could have been a new Pulp Fiction
anders-kanten14 June 2012
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!
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!
What a mess...
traianracu2 December 2011
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.
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.
Jeebus, What A Mess
messiercat1 December 2011
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.
The only reason it gets a few stars is Whitaker's energy. Extremely pathetic project. Avoid.
Don't Fake IT
bobbybits4 December 2011
This whole film was just awful. 3 out 10 only because it had some actors I would normally have enjoyed anywhere else apart from this film.
Forest Whittaker trying to be Tony Montana and sounding just awful while also changing his accent 3 or 4 times throughout this movie was pathetic. Bruce Willis with his shrivelled nuts grew old. This movie was a really awful attempt at a Quentin Tarantino that lacked in every aspect, from its poor dialogue, the realism, gangsters just don't act that way and its scenes. By the end of this movie, left feeling what a waste of time! Why do they honestly bother making this trash, as this movie certainly will not give them credibility or help them with their careers.
Don't fake it, was the only message in this film as it certainly was a compromise on any genuine attempt at making a movie.
Forest Whittaker trying to be Tony Montana and sounding just awful while also changing his accent 3 or 4 times throughout this movie was pathetic. Bruce Willis with his shrivelled nuts grew old. This movie was a really awful attempt at a Quentin Tarantino that lacked in every aspect, from its poor dialogue, the realism, gangsters just don't act that way and its scenes. By the end of this movie, left feeling what a waste of time! Why do they honestly bother making this trash, as this movie certainly will not give them credibility or help them with their careers.
Don't fake it, was the only message in this film as it certainly was a compromise on any genuine attempt at making a movie.
Not bad
mr-watson20062 December 2011
So I got to see Catch .44 the other day and I was curious what Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker were doing in the same movie...the conclusion was that Bruce wasn't doing much... He's the guy for the poster, who gets people in cinemas like the recent flow with Pacino ( The son of no one)and De Niro(Limitless), his part in the movie is of an evil Charlie with evil angels and his whole screen time is of 5 minutes tops. On the other hand there is Forest, Forest Whitaker who makes this movie much more entertaining then it really is, playing a No country for old men kind of character but really getting into the role and giving a really good performance. So the acting was good and the script was OK but my impression was that they could have done more if they had put more effort into it, it could have been great, and that's not a small thing for 2011... There isn't actually a lot to talk about, it had a little twist in the end which I liked but the ending is kind of given away if you pay attention to the movie so in the middle of the action you ask yourself how does it come to what I just saw...won't give away more because I don't want to spoil it for you. My recommendation is to see the movie because it's not a waste of time/money. I'm giving a 7/10 because of the wasted potential...
Tarentino rip off
RPRodgers-227-3936041 December 2011
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.
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.
Babble! Babble! Bang! Bang!
zardoz-1328 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Writer & director Aaron Harvey's shoot'em up "Catch .44" qualifies as an above-average opus hampered by too much talk but boasting an ample body count. Essentially, this tightly-knit crime thriller about a circle of shady characters in the middle of nowhere in Louisiana shares a lot in common with Quentin Tarantino's loquacious crime dramas. The females are empowered, the language is smutty, and the blood flows like wine. The trouble is that not all of the dialogue is as cool as half of it is. The joke about the Catholic nuns is about as witty as this dark tale gets. The story follows three women with guns who are working for a guy named Mel (Bruce Willis of "Die Hard") and they are supposed to intercept a shipment of illegal narcotics going through Mel's territory. An African-American gun-for-hire (Forest Whitaker of "Bird") has been Mel's close friend for seven years and he has the girls' back. The women arrive at a rendezvous which turns out to be a greasy spoon off the highway and find themselves deep knee of blood and corpses. Harvey relates his bloodthirsty yarn in flashback so you know who is going to survive before the tale is told. Nevertheless, good performances, some interesting dialogue, and some violence boost this yarn about what it would have been.
lose all hope
tomgprs1 December 2011
I am only thankful that I have the option of turning off a film when my eyes begin to bleed. I have the feeling that Bruce Willis is either contractually obligated to make these films, or that he is desperate for work. I have been a big fan of Forest Whitaker for a long time and his performance is the only aspect of this nightmare on stilts that is not contemptible to the nth degree. Giving nothing away, let me just say that watching three airhead bimbos acting like tough guys for an hour and a half is an objective and honest summation of this "film". Willis has very minor scenes-where he is "less" than usual- and the rest is a haphazard mix of of terrible acting on the parts of our three "heroines". The actresses are all snotty and so dumb that it seems like the producers deliberately made a bloody gangster film for angry teenage drama queens. I do not mind ultra-violence, but targeting children - the way this movie seems to do- is reprehensible. Where are all the good writers. Why cant we put the art back into "blown apart"?
Woeful
Alphacertified7 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Not good at all. The dialogue and its delivery, especially by the 3 girls, has you wondering why you didn't persist with your own theatrical pursuits because you would surely do a better job. To be fair, they would have been directed to bash out this forced, contrived, try- hard, Point Break type of hard-assed goofball dialogue. Awkwardly slotting in the f word to try to give it some sort of edge but only appearing absolutely unnatural doesn't make for any sort of meatiness. FW is good, BW average, but I spent the final 95% of the movie waiting and hoping (but knowing my dream wouldn't come true) for the third chick to bite the bullet.
The whole thing smacks of an amateurs attempt at such a genre. Very high school!
The whole thing smacks of an amateurs attempt at such a genre. Very high school!
Great movie - Almost like directed by Quentin Tarantino
vincent-vega852 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie without even taking a look at it previously. However, after having seen it I can truly say - it is worth to be seen.
It starts off as 2 story lines (the 3 girls and then Ronny's) which slowly merge together. It is somehow very similar to Quentin Tarantino (QT) movies - for example like Pulp Fiction - where multiple story lines combine at the end. Also the splatter effects and the little subtext stories (for ex. final story at the end where Mel and Ronny meet) told by the actors are much like the ones from QT.
It was just weird to see Bruce Willis in such a role. He is a freaky messy Boss who hires people with "special" talents. He hired the blond girl to do jobs for him. Somehow they messed up the last job they did. So after quite a while the received a new "easy" Job from Mel (B. Willis). And they tried to make it count, because they all needed the cash. At the end everything/everybody comes together in a little truck stop and the ending is as bloody as the start.
It starts off as 2 story lines (the 3 girls and then Ronny's) which slowly merge together. It is somehow very similar to Quentin Tarantino (QT) movies - for example like Pulp Fiction - where multiple story lines combine at the end. Also the splatter effects and the little subtext stories (for ex. final story at the end where Mel and Ronny meet) told by the actors are much like the ones from QT.
It was just weird to see Bruce Willis in such a role. He is a freaky messy Boss who hires people with "special" talents. He hired the blond girl to do jobs for him. Somehow they messed up the last job they did. So after quite a while the received a new "easy" Job from Mel (B. Willis). And they tried to make it count, because they all needed the cash. At the end everything/everybody comes together in a little truck stop and the ending is as bloody as the start.
An interesting, slightly unfocused, yet entertaining movie
NateWatchesCoolMovies15 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Catch 44 lives in that lurid interzone of direct to video crime thrillers that have the budget for the bare boned minumum: guns, a few big name actors stopping b for a paycheck, and a hard boiled, often ludicrous tale of criminals, cops and sexy chicks knocking each other off for some unnatainable trinket of wealth. Here we meet three lively femmmes fatale: Malin Ackerman, Nikki Reed and Daredevil's Deborah Ann Woll, the angel's to Bruce Willis's Charlie, in this case a sleazy criminal kingpin named Mel. He tasks them with intercepting a mysterious package that passes through a lonesome truckstop diner. All hell breaks loose when the shotgun toting owner (Shea Wigham) takes them off guard, and blood is shed. From there it all spirals into a mess of chases, strange pseudo artsy setups and the entire cast hamming it royally as they essentially go nowhere fast. There's Forest Whitaker who seems to have wandered in from the loony bin, playing a psychotic Sheriff who switches up his accent from scene to scene until we realize we are sitting there watching an Oscar winner warble out a choppy Tony Soprano impression and have to chuckle at the absurdity of it all. Willis has fun doing his nonchalant smirk to kingdom come and sporting a soul patch that steals his scenes before he gets a chance. There's also an underused Brad Dourif as a confused highway patrolman who wanders in and out of the story. A lot of pulpy outings like this get accused of aping Quentin Tarantino's style, and while that is often a lazy, bullshit critic's cliché, here the claim is understandable and not necessarily a bad thing. The soundtrack is appropriately offbeat, the troubled of girls have a Death Proof type camaraderie and Willis Ambleside through his scenes with a verbosity reminiscent of Pulp Fiction. The story is a little haywire and one wonders what the ultimate outcome even means, but it sure has a ball getting there in violent, kooky fashion.
A bad attempt at style over substance.
jpurits-604-5592178 December 2011
From the beginning of the movie you can feel the director trying to emulate Tarantino. Music to set the mood, catchy dialogue and time scene cuts. Trying is the operative word here. Sadly, the mark was missed on everything except the soundtrack, that was the only good thing about this movie. The story was unbelievable with characters you really do not care about, bordering on completely ridiculous towards the end. The dialogue was horrible. And, was there a plot ? If there was one then I definitely missed it.
A good soundtrack, bunch of cute girls, somewhat stylish cinematography and gun play does not make for a passable movie. In fact it makes it worse, because you try to enjoy it, try to find something redeeming about it and in the end just come away completely disappointed. That is not what the movie experience should be about.
Willis and Whitaker should bother to read the script before taking on any future movies. The only thing that I can imagine made them do this one is either they are desperate for work or they were doing a favor for a friend.
Do yourself a favor, go out and buy the soundtrack, you will get much better value for your money, and more enjoyment, than wasting your time watching this movie.
A good soundtrack, bunch of cute girls, somewhat stylish cinematography and gun play does not make for a passable movie. In fact it makes it worse, because you try to enjoy it, try to find something redeeming about it and in the end just come away completely disappointed. That is not what the movie experience should be about.
Willis and Whitaker should bother to read the script before taking on any future movies. The only thing that I can imagine made them do this one is either they are desperate for work or they were doing a favor for a friend.
Do yourself a favor, go out and buy the soundtrack, you will get much better value for your money, and more enjoyment, than wasting your time watching this movie.
Excruciating Painful To Watch
alex-frey-pattaya3 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This will be a very short review because the movie has literally a 10 minutes plot which have been extended by the untalented writer and director Aaron Harvey. His first movie "The Evil Woods" was already bad, Catch.44 is worse.
Here is a sum up of the problems with this straight to DVD-Release.... We know that the main character Tes (Malin Akerman) will survive which makes the 30 minutes stare down contest in the end completely unnecessary. We know what is going to happen in the scene after that too because we know she has survived and since all the dialogs been painful and excruciating to a very high level we can't wait for this awful film to end. I am shocked Forrest Whitaker and Bruce Willis give their names for such a bad movie. Like I said, the plot is 10 minutes long but director decided to Tarantino the plot which was interesting for the first 30 minutes, after that it became clear that he was trying to copy pulp fiction but neither the acting nor the dialogs can compare with that. It is as simple as that.
The attempt was made to make a rough movie with hardcore people and put a bunch of twists on it. Fact is we didn't care for any of these people since they haven't been explained to us nor did they appear very sympathetic. In the end of the day nobody cares who is going to die. All these hard people that are supposed to measure up to Pulp Fiction appeared to be like Glee singing Metallica. I can't stress the point enough that we know that Tes will survive which makes the last 30 minutes completely pointless.
By far one of the worst movies I have seen in 2011, clearly one of the biggest regrets for Willis and Whitaker.
Don't watch it, it is really really bad, Aaron Harvey is a horrific writer, it is not even good on a pretentious level. In a mainstream blockbuster movie the entire plot would have been 3 minutes long, putting random dialogs in it doesn't make it better. No Message, No real storyline and the end given away in the beginning, it's not art, it's not entertaining just really bad.
3 Stars because because of the cast.
Here is a sum up of the problems with this straight to DVD-Release.... We know that the main character Tes (Malin Akerman) will survive which makes the 30 minutes stare down contest in the end completely unnecessary. We know what is going to happen in the scene after that too because we know she has survived and since all the dialogs been painful and excruciating to a very high level we can't wait for this awful film to end. I am shocked Forrest Whitaker and Bruce Willis give their names for such a bad movie. Like I said, the plot is 10 minutes long but director decided to Tarantino the plot which was interesting for the first 30 minutes, after that it became clear that he was trying to copy pulp fiction but neither the acting nor the dialogs can compare with that. It is as simple as that.
The attempt was made to make a rough movie with hardcore people and put a bunch of twists on it. Fact is we didn't care for any of these people since they haven't been explained to us nor did they appear very sympathetic. In the end of the day nobody cares who is going to die. All these hard people that are supposed to measure up to Pulp Fiction appeared to be like Glee singing Metallica. I can't stress the point enough that we know that Tes will survive which makes the last 30 minutes completely pointless.
By far one of the worst movies I have seen in 2011, clearly one of the biggest regrets for Willis and Whitaker.
Don't watch it, it is really really bad, Aaron Harvey is a horrific writer, it is not even good on a pretentious level. In a mainstream blockbuster movie the entire plot would have been 3 minutes long, putting random dialogs in it doesn't make it better. No Message, No real storyline and the end given away in the beginning, it's not art, it's not entertaining just really bad.
3 Stars because because of the cast.
This movie is so bad, I was compelled to...
zerodarkmail20 August 2012
...create this account. Imagine my disappointment when finding that there was no "0" grade. Ah. well. I suppose a "1" will have to do.
I don't blame the actors, I blame the writers, director, the DP, the editor, basically anyone who had something to do with the awful script and crappy visuals.
To call this a Tarantino ripoff would be an insult to Tarantino ripoffs.
I need seven more lines, but I can't think of anything else to say.
This movie doesn't deserve ten lines of text.
I hope all of the actors involved fired their agents.
Seriously, a Bruce Willis song?
"Hey, lets make a movie like Tarantino would, if he had no talent." - the people who made this piece of crap.
My favorite part of this movie was right before I pushed "play", before any hope of seeing a good film was dashed in the first five minutes of watching.
How did they get some of the actors to agree to be in this? I can only imagine blackmail or the kidnapping of loved ones was involved.
I don't blame the actors, I blame the writers, director, the DP, the editor, basically anyone who had something to do with the awful script and crappy visuals.
To call this a Tarantino ripoff would be an insult to Tarantino ripoffs.
I need seven more lines, but I can't think of anything else to say.
This movie doesn't deserve ten lines of text.
I hope all of the actors involved fired their agents.
Seriously, a Bruce Willis song?
"Hey, lets make a movie like Tarantino would, if he had no talent." - the people who made this piece of crap.
My favorite part of this movie was right before I pushed "play", before any hope of seeing a good film was dashed in the first five minutes of watching.
How did they get some of the actors to agree to be in this? I can only imagine blackmail or the kidnapping of loved ones was involved.
Poorly scripted
Leofwine_draca5 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
CATCH .44 is a poorly-scripted low budget thriller set in a diner in the middle of the night. Various characters turn up with nefarious purposes in mind but things go horribly wrong with murder and shoot-outs coming to the fore. This is an obvious attempt to make a Tarantino-style thriller full of edginess and grit, but the below par script means that things quickly get routine and rather dull. What's a real pity is that many familiar faces are wasted in nothing parts, from Forest Whitaker stuck with a bad accent to a barely-glimpsed Bruce Willis, Shea Whigham and Brad Dourif.
Catch, Catch .44...a nice little thriller
djderka30 December 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Some have panned this flick, some said awful. Truth is, some don't know what awful really is. Like Candy Strippers, some of the SY FY movies, and those horrible videos on zombies and such that show up at small independent film festivals. The "I got a video camera for Christmas and now I can make a movie," kind of movies.
Aaron Harvey, director, snagged Bruce Willis (who likes these off beat roles, as in Pulp Fiction, and Forrest Whittaker who was great in this with a gem role of a faltering hit man who entertains himself with wacky characters.
Catch .44 opens in a restaurant, an homage to Tarentino and other restaurant openings, with 3 chicks talking not about tips, but sexuality.
Basically some cute chicks are hired to do a drug run job, but in reality their boss is planning their demise.
I really like the lighting design in this film. It was genius compared to the horrible lighting in Contraband, a 40 million dollar forgettable flick. There was nice subject emphasis, shadow detail, range of tones, and noirish feelings in the lighting design of Catch .44.
And Harvey didn't have to 'fade in /out' like Dirty Little Secrets where the director did fade in and out to show a 'time shift', which slowed the movie to a crawl.
At least Harvey trusted the audience to know a time shift when it sees one and often just used a CU of a clock to show a time shift.
Overall, a great cast, nice direction, great lighting, and not a bad film.
Some people critique films on "no redeeming characters"...they are all bad guys they opine. Well try watching Breaking Bad. A great TV series. As was the play Richard III by Shakespeare. So unless you like watching Ozzie and Harriet, the 1950's TV series, be prepared for bad guys as heroes and other flawed characters in the movies. I mean Pulp Fiction had two hit men as the heroes.
And OK the ending scene did go on forever with a standoff, but hey did you ever see the end to For a Few Dollars More? That went on forever with a scene containing: Lee Van Cleef, Clint Eastwood, and Eli Wallach in a similar triangle shoot out.
I got it as a rental and did enjoy it as a thriller with some quirky, original characters by Willis and Whittaker.
Aaron Harvey, director, snagged Bruce Willis (who likes these off beat roles, as in Pulp Fiction, and Forrest Whittaker who was great in this with a gem role of a faltering hit man who entertains himself with wacky characters.
Catch .44 opens in a restaurant, an homage to Tarentino and other restaurant openings, with 3 chicks talking not about tips, but sexuality.
Basically some cute chicks are hired to do a drug run job, but in reality their boss is planning their demise.
I really like the lighting design in this film. It was genius compared to the horrible lighting in Contraband, a 40 million dollar forgettable flick. There was nice subject emphasis, shadow detail, range of tones, and noirish feelings in the lighting design of Catch .44.
And Harvey didn't have to 'fade in /out' like Dirty Little Secrets where the director did fade in and out to show a 'time shift', which slowed the movie to a crawl.
At least Harvey trusted the audience to know a time shift when it sees one and often just used a CU of a clock to show a time shift.
Overall, a great cast, nice direction, great lighting, and not a bad film.
Some people critique films on "no redeeming characters"...they are all bad guys they opine. Well try watching Breaking Bad. A great TV series. As was the play Richard III by Shakespeare. So unless you like watching Ozzie and Harriet, the 1950's TV series, be prepared for bad guys as heroes and other flawed characters in the movies. I mean Pulp Fiction had two hit men as the heroes.
And OK the ending scene did go on forever with a standoff, but hey did you ever see the end to For a Few Dollars More? That went on forever with a scene containing: Lee Van Cleef, Clint Eastwood, and Eli Wallach in a similar triangle shoot out.
I got it as a rental and did enjoy it as a thriller with some quirky, original characters by Willis and Whittaker.
Contrived and wasted
shanksinha1 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This film ends up wasting each and every strength it begins with. It has a solid cast with Whitaker and Willis, a good looking female lead (Akerman) and a somewhat interesting premise. Things become bad pretty quickly though. Dialog heavy pieces are stretched too long and contribute little towards character development. In fact one can simply fast forward through them (there is a lot of urge to do that) and still completely understand the movie. Nonlinear editing can be an engaging tool in the hands of the right story teller, here it feels simply unnecessary. The director wants to emulate a certain style of film making; his craft however, is inadequate. The film ends up looking like a Tarantino wannabe contrived affair. Forest Whitaker unsurprisingly commands a captivating screen presence, which leaves us slightly puzzled as to why he agreed to be a part of this mess. Bruce Willis has an almost cameo appearance and gives a stock performance. Malin Akerman looks beautiful and has the screen presence of a star. But then that's about it.
Its a good movie to watch !!!
denizuzun585 January 2012
I just wanna say there are 3 type of movies
1 spectacular 2 normal (watchable) 3 bad
And believe me this is 2 one to watch......
I just watched the movie and let me tell you one thing. Don't judge a movie because what people is writing or reviewing.... if i did i plausibly would not watch this movie and i am glad i watched the whole movie may be thats what you should do people.
One thing a hate the most is if people are comparing movies its a Tarantino movie its a Steven Spielberg movie or something
Than we should not watch action movies because its almost the same right...
Get a life people............
Sorry for my English i am a little bit upset because of the reviews...
Enjoy the movie people
1 spectacular 2 normal (watchable) 3 bad
And believe me this is 2 one to watch......
I just watched the movie and let me tell you one thing. Don't judge a movie because what people is writing or reviewing.... if i did i plausibly would not watch this movie and i am glad i watched the whole movie may be thats what you should do people.
One thing a hate the most is if people are comparing movies its a Tarantino movie its a Steven Spielberg movie or something
Than we should not watch action movies because its almost the same right...
Get a life people............
Sorry for my English i am a little bit upset because of the reviews...
Enjoy the movie people
What did I just watch?
reddiemurf811 April 2020
Despite having a very good cast of actors and actresses,,, this was just a mess. One of those "needed the paycheck" role movies,, or terribly edited.
With names like Bruce Willis, Forest Whitaker, Malin Akerman, Brad Dourif, and several other recognizable faces,, you'd expect better. There is one really good scene btwn Willis and Whitaker,,, but those 2-3 mins don't make up for the rest of it.
Unless you're just looking for something to play and make noise while you don't really pay attention to it,,, just skip this one.
With names like Bruce Willis, Forest Whitaker, Malin Akerman, Brad Dourif, and several other recognizable faces,, you'd expect better. There is one really good scene btwn Willis and Whitaker,,, but those 2-3 mins don't make up for the rest of it.
Unless you're just looking for something to play and make noise while you don't really pay attention to it,,, just skip this one.
a drug heist gone bad turns psychodrama
Jorgescarlisle2 December 2011
A drug heist gone bad turns into the longest Mexican standoff in movie history, which serves as backdrop for an inter-character psychodrama.
The strong back-story is told through flashbacks and a progressive repetition of a traumatic shootout scene, which is used to establish two of the moderately well fleshed out main characters but leaves the balance of the cast notably lacking in character development.
Forest Whitaker's command of his scenes dominate the movie. By contrast, Bruce Willis's portrayal of his thinly developed character is a bit underplayed—not the best movie of either of these greats by far.
Malin Akerman however, really puts a feather in her cap for this one. Her character "Tes," ain't Lauri Jupiter. This film serves to demonstrate how wide this lady's range is by comparison to her early works on screen.
The balance of the cast, each of notable talent, were sadly not given the opportunity to demonstrate the full extent of their skills. I was particularly disappointed with the amount of material Shea Whiggham was given to work with. For now I suppose, we'll have to suffice with Boardwalk Empire to see the range of this actor.
The score is worthy of note, with a single exception—the plug for Bruce Willis's 1980's singing debut was unforgivable and weakened the strength of both the score and the movie overall.
Overall though, in spite of the flaws, this movie is worth watching. You shouldn't walk away feeling that you've lost 90 minutes of your life that you'll never get back, and it's a better film than a lot of what I've seen coming out of Hollywood this year.
The strong back-story is told through flashbacks and a progressive repetition of a traumatic shootout scene, which is used to establish two of the moderately well fleshed out main characters but leaves the balance of the cast notably lacking in character development.
Forest Whitaker's command of his scenes dominate the movie. By contrast, Bruce Willis's portrayal of his thinly developed character is a bit underplayed—not the best movie of either of these greats by far.
Malin Akerman however, really puts a feather in her cap for this one. Her character "Tes," ain't Lauri Jupiter. This film serves to demonstrate how wide this lady's range is by comparison to her early works on screen.
The balance of the cast, each of notable talent, were sadly not given the opportunity to demonstrate the full extent of their skills. I was particularly disappointed with the amount of material Shea Whiggham was given to work with. For now I suppose, we'll have to suffice with Boardwalk Empire to see the range of this actor.
The score is worthy of note, with a single exception—the plug for Bruce Willis's 1980's singing debut was unforgivable and weakened the strength of both the score and the movie overall.
Overall though, in spite of the flaws, this movie is worth watching. You shouldn't walk away feeling that you've lost 90 minutes of your life that you'll never get back, and it's a better film than a lot of what I've seen coming out of Hollywood this year.
A very entertaining action mystery in the vein of "Pulp Fiction". Nothing outstanding but still very much worth seeing. I say B+
cosmo_tiger3 December 2011
"I worked with you for seven years...always liked you, always looked after you, but I never trusted you." Tess (Akerman) and her friends have one simple task. Meet a trucker at a restaurant and take the truck from him. Things do not go as planned and secrets begin to come out, as well as bullets. This movie was a surprise. After watching "Set-up" with Bruce Willis (who was in it for about 5 minutes) I was skeptical. While he is not the main star in this one either this one actually is a pretty good movie. This movie reminded me a lot of "Pulp Fiction" in the way that it jumps back and forth all the time until you have every part of the story. Akerman and Whitaker do a great job in this and for someone like Malin Akerman to take a role in an action movie and pull it off as good as she does is also a surprise. While not a top notch action movie this one is still very much worth while and will not let you down. Overall, a very good movie that is well worth your time. I give it a B+.
Could have been better.
sir_couchpotato2 December 2011
The movie jumps around in time, starting close to the end of the story then jumping back to give a little back story then back forward and back again and forward... The back and forth is an interesting way to tell the story and it keeps you watching for a while. But by the time they replay the same scene for the fourth time, you're asking yourself, "why do I care whats happening?" None of the characters really stand out as interesting, as we've all seen these characters before. By the end I was wondering, "where is this even going?" The end result... nowhere. Unremarkable as a whole but with a deeper back story and more substance it could have been better.
Most boring movie I've ever seen.
stevegranet2 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
*DISCLAIMER* Give away details of plot This movie is an absolutely horrible movie. For the first half an hour of the movie you spend about 15 minutes of it listening to music while watching the cast complete mundane tasks such as showering and dressing (non sexy), and driving. The movie is only an hour and a half long. The movie doesn't doesn't seem to make any sense or go in any direction until the last 5 minutes where they loosely tie everything together. The movie is lacking action scenes as they repeat the only action scene about 4 times. Other than that its just pointless talking that doesn't add to the plot(or lack there of). There is no humor. The characters are weak, often lacking depth and are random at best.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
