User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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"?

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.

...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.

Tried too hard throughout to be a Tarantino film, but missed the mark precisely because you could tell it was "trying." I swear to all the filthy gods of our fathers, if my television was one of those old deep tube TVs that could explode, I would've effing shot it like Elvis shot out his TV when he was watching Robert Goulet on the Mike Douglas show. The only difference is I wasn't watching in a hotel.

This is one of the worst wannabe films I've ever seen in my entire effing life. Put another way, if I had a chance to defecate on this film, I would drop a steaming deuce on it and punch the producer's mother in the mouth.

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

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.

"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+.

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.