Reviews

OK, iv known this movie froma long time ago this review is based on my 3rd time watching this film. if it wasn't a good thriller i wouldn't have watched it 3 times. That being said, the movie, and probably the story book itself is extremely narrow angled, meaning that we only see what is happening only to the girls perspective. and i understand movies this kind but it doesn't give it excuse to not explain everything that happens around her. the movie is good at that but u cant help but ask questions, and in the end it leaves you unsatisfied and uncomfortable. why was the criminal there? what did he want? if you weren't having fun with the suspense, while watching the movie and saw the big picture instead of only her perspective, the movie really begins to be incredibly stupid and dumb.the movie's attraction is soley based on the criminal's creepines towards her, there is no reason for him to be creepy it just seems that he was put in the movie only for that purpose, and the movie doesn't explain this attitude in the end, so for this reason this movie was incredibly unrealistic. even in the action scenes only happening in the end, after all the build up we don't see his face, this is how much this movie is narrow scoped. its just dumb. while watching i told myself that probably these questions will be answerd on the end but it didn't, and thats when this movie falls flat on its face. the movie is under an hour and a half but it really really should have been 2 hours long; i never felt bored with it. there are small holes in the story which don't really bother me but as i said it should have been 2 hours, like how Bobby got the house number? and i heard that the older movie was better; saw some clips on youtube and comments saying the movie is a masterpiece, well all that doesn't intrigue me a bit because after watching the clips i don't relate to it one bit. and those old moves always have those BORING scenes that just don't contribute to the plot in any way, like we have all day to care about fictional characters in a movie. i mean there's a fine line between putting pointless scenes and putting just enough to be realistic ;Peter Jackson and Spielberg are good at that example.

You know, Hollywood have gotten very devious in recent years, they don't want to make movies for the sake of movies anymore, they just want money.. and to poison your mind. they know what they can do to make the audience like the movie, for example: planting an innocent idea and then by the end of the movie referencing it, they know u like that and it will sugar coat the movie very well, that u wont even know/taste its shitty core. they know your buttons and can easily press it. this movie will please the weak minded. i don't want to list every technical crappy moment in this movie because honestly i could spend my time better, but there's my conclusion. man, i only watched it when bored at a friend's, i wouldn't spend a dime, a minute, a MB on this movie..ever.

Hit-man is based on a game, but that is not an excuse for the movie's very weak story foundation.

i honestly there could be a part 1 of the movie because that would explain a lot. i found it more entertaining to stop asking questions in the plot and just enjoy it. my opinion is that movie could have been much better if enough effort was exerted in explaining the story line, complex events happen throughout the movie around the main plot line and the movie wasn't able to handle that a decent movie would be able to (which lessens its value), things just happened which probably was put there to make the movie look bigger and more epic than it really is so either make the movie simple (by removing all the extra fluff that really the producer failed to put any effort in explaining it from ground up), so i can fully understand it and thats what should have happened, because it already has a flimsy story base. or make it much bigger and longer so that it would be a real "A" movie not just another forgotten action flick, i felt they filmed a bunch of scenes put them together and called it a movie and not much thinking was made behind the scenes. shame because i think it is worth putting the extra effort in because how cool the movie was and how it captured the Hit-man essence, so if the movie was given to the right directors/producers i think would have made a huge difference. so its a movie that u would remember a while after watching, not the story but the characters. the following may not seem in relation but the scene where 47 kills belecof's brother; if you ever played Bad Boys II on PC the final scene is strikingly similar its not even funny, i had deja-vu.

I gave this movie an 8 not more. it could have been better if not of its flaws. Certain events and characters just seem to appear in the movie spontaneously confusing the viewer by means of clouding the previously clear storyline. I.e Rachel Banks ; in this movie she didn't fit in, i wasn't comfortable with her role, so either the director should disregard the character completely or give it the time and development the role deserves. i the whole movie she appeared like 5 minutes in total and every time i see her i get mentally and logically uncomfotable. how come such a role that has huge impact on the plot appears so little? i hate it when film makers do that! so she died so i thought, OK now ill just enjoy the rest of the movie without the confusion surrounding her (i have no idea how she has any affiliation with the main structure of the plot) so i watch and towards the end pops up another character (mafia boss which i didn't even know existed) without any preface/ pre- familiarization and its not one of those movie twists that explains who he is after a confusing scene. and TBH the whole ending was down right unsuitable for all the work up that preceded it since the beginning. Around the last 25 minutes the movie feels obviously rushed. still i think there is no movie post 2000 in this genre that does it better, this movies has all flavors of thriller and suspense. the part when tony says he sold the tape to the mafia boss, why don't we see that? still most of the flaws is towards the end probably because of this rushed state.

The Transporter has an exciting storyline that hardly has any flaws, but the action on the other hand was where all the flaws were. had an awesome first hour, but then last quarter of the movie which was mostly action is FAR FETCHED and unrealistic. i didn't like the way he got rid of the bad guys the manouvers he did especially the last one on the truck when he threw his nemesis out is just physically impossible, also when he was thrown infront of the speeding truck and how the girl killed the armed man in the end to save frank . the action scenes i felt were rushed and far from perfected, also there is too much (hero runs bullets hitting every place except the target, and that what i hate about action movies, because it makes it look cheap and unrealistic) so if i judged based on the action soley it would be another unworthy action flick. as i said this movie makes me take it seriously throughout a big chunk from the beginning thats why i enjoyed the first half better than the last parts, which made me feel like im watching another movie because it didn't live up to the atmosphere set up in the beginning. for me crank 2 was more realistic.

i wanted to watch a thriller movie because i liked 'the breed" the key to a good suspenseful /thriller is to make the viewer sucked in and live the moment, and this didn't happen here. what i see here is a bunch of DUMBASSES who keep fuking themselves up by they're own incredibly retarded decisions and actions, and that is the key to a very bad thriller. one little example is that they put Matthias too close to the veins that it took his cut off legs, BUT THEY Didn't MOVE HIM, so then it choked him and no one notice on time although they were all living on that damn tiny artifact.maybe if u have a very low IQ u would enjoy this movie.

maybe i have seen too much "crazy person movies" that are even newer than this film, and this one is not that special. i thought the movie was going great before they made him crazy having double personalitys, and when a movie does that for me it just sinks to that level ; the level of crazy person movies, (and its all been a dream movies too). i was really enjoying it, but it left a negative impression of me in the end . and i don't know why it got a really high mark here on IMDb, maybe its the first of its kind, i don't know, what i do know that if it was unique, its not anymore. what i like about the movie is its dialogue/script deep meaningful, eyeopening and wise.

i must start by saying i am not a christopher nolan fan, i dislike most of his movies. most of his movies are just over the top with his know nothing to do but jumble the scenes so the people would be more impressed with the outcome in the end when he pours all the important scenes required to understand wat the hell is happening in a random order leaving your brain struggling to arrange the storyline together and forgetting all the details that usually doesn't make sense, quickly ending the movie in a really RUSHED manner, and all that just takes the fun away of any movie [1-develop lots of questions 2- deliver the answers in a highly compressed package 3- End] that wat CN does, and thats why i would never recognize him as one of the great directors like Spielberg, Osborn, Jackson. But in this movie although i did not know at the time CN made it i realized that halfway through and it was confirmed in the end where it was a little too 'Nolany' because they gave as little information/details as possible but was wrapped up nicely (the dark knight syndrome, which i hate BTW.) and i always have to ask my self is it really logical? can this happen in reality? or did he just put all those twists and turns to leave an impression. But in this movie i think it was best that CN direct it because of its nature but again it was a little too much to fully enjoy the movie. i think his brother JN made a good balance, and i feel contrary to many opinions that CN cannot portray/present a story but rather write it, so i don't like him as a director. the story itself was especially priceless because it ended the way i wanted to in favor of chritian bale, the movie was never slow exciting form the start i liked its pace excecpt the last 30 mins where it turned all 'Nolany'. and i need to watch it again to see if it will satisfy my highly logical mind, as there are still some tiny events that is not ironed out.

So i am watching this movie and in some part i get the Mortal Kombat deja- vu when jcvd was fighting the huge man, also resembled the one in MK, did the split and hit him in the crotch, just like johnny cage did. good soundtrack dialogue acting, plot.

Now this is the part that really annoys me in the end the say its based on a true story, probably to give u the WOW effect but to me this is a low cheap thing to do especially that 80% of the movie has nothing to do with the reality of Frank Dux experienced i mean this could have been a great movie by itself just like Kickboxer but no they chose to do that, only the names were correct, even the location they failed to do they made it in hong kong and it was really in the Bahamas, again to give u that WOW Hollywood effect.

i recently watched source code, limitless, and unknown which i will make a review for each of them. all these movies have something in common i feel the directors try to rush they don't take enough time to explain the complicated concepts and events in which is crucial to understand the movies, they also do not shed enough light on key role characters, in addition the dialog is often vague in which the viewer is not clear on whats happening, in a nutshell the storytelling in all three movies is plain CRAPPY (Unknown not so much), i cant help but feel that most directors are attempting to imitate Christopher Nolan style which i despise (making fairly complicating ideas into hugely complicated through his very bad direction and storytelling and even dialog. in limitless and source code specifically very little information is provided keeping the viewer thinking in order to fill the illogical gaping holes in the technicality of the story and the complicated events revolving around the main character leaving the viewer thinking logically of what or why just happened instead of just enjoying the moment. and this what i don't recognize in older movies i don't feel the movie is an outline or a summary of a longer movie, and i don't feel the compression of the development of incidences during the movie.

--Source Code--- the main point i don't like about that movie is the carelessness of explaining the concept behind the source code, they explained it in a very superficial way, i am sure most people wont care, but for me it makes a big difference, especially towards the end it quickens its pace although the end part is the most complicated part, when he sent the sms why didn't she receive it instantly? and when he wrote it how did he know he will continue to live?(as he stated in the sms). i also noticed that every time Stevens returned to the bunker was because he died NOT because the eight minutes were over. so they did an awful job explaining the technicality. also the part where he was freezing and things went wrong in the bunker the screen was broken, i don't get this part at all how did that happen? , this part just doesn't belong in the movie, its just a scene they put there to extend time.

i recently watched source code, limitless, and unknown which i will make a review for each of them. all these movies have something in common i feel the directors try to rush they don't take enough time to explain the complicated concepts and events in which is crucial to understand the movies, they also do not shed enough light on key role characters, in addition the dialog is often vague in which the viewer is not clear on whats happening, in a nutshell the storytelling in all three movies is plain CRAPPY (Unknown not so much), i cant help but feel that most directors are attempting to imitate Christopher Nolan style which i despise (making fairly complicating ideas into hugely complicated through his very bad direction and storytelling and even dialog. in limitless and source code specifically very little information is provided keeping the viewer thinking in order to fill the illogical gaping holes in the technicality of the story and the complicated events revolving around the main character leaving the viewer thinking logically of what or why just happened instead of just enjoying the moment. and this what i don't recognize in older movies i don't feel the movie is an outline or a summary of another longer version, and i don't feel the compression of the development of incidences during the movie.

---Limitless--- First half of the movie i enjoyed a lot the pace was perfect not too fast or too slow, but the the second half, many incidents just happened that just wasn't made clear or shed light upon enough, Why did the man in tan coat chase him after he realized he was calling him? this part is not explained, and like when Brandt the lawyer (how should i know he took the pills too) stole the pills from Atwood who was dying and when (after i replayed this part half a dozen times) the man in tan coat killed Brandt for stealing from his boss then Eddie took the pills. and when retrieved the pills from his girlfriend's place how the hell did he lose them again? these parts are compressed in a crazy way it makes u hate the movie, these are just a few of many, but the movie was a new idea and i enjoyed most of it although some parts make u yell "oh common!" like when Eddie dropped the last pill in the drain or when he couldn't even hide this one pill from the Russian guy, these parts are just stupid. the movie could have easily be 2 hrs but it seems Hollywood only makes movies that doesn't exceed 1:40. this seems to be a common trait which is very annoying.

i recently watched source code, limitless, and unknown which i will make a review for each of them. all these movies have something in common i feel the directors try to rush they don't take enough time to explain the complicated concepts and events in which is crucial to understand the movies, they also do not shed enough light on key role characters, in addition the dialog is often vague in which the viewer is not clear on whats happening, in a nutshell the storytelling in all three movies is plain CRAPPY (Unknown not so much), i cant help but feel that most directors are attempting to imitate Christopher Nolan style which i despise (making fairly complicating ideas into hugely complicated through his very bad direction and storytelling and even dialog. in limitless and source code specifically very little information is provided keeping the viewer thinking in order to fill the illogical gaping holes in the technicality of the story and the complicated events revolving around the main character leaving the viewer thinking logically of what or why just happened instead of just enjoying the moment. and this what i don't recognize in older movies i don't feel the movie is an outline or a summary of a longer movie, and i don't feel the compression of the development of incidences during the movie.

---Unknown--- as i gave it a good rating because the negative points never really ruined the experience for me as most movies do, my negative point is the director did not shed enough light and developing the secondary characters, i am talking mainly about Rodney Cole, the part where the German x-spy killed himself and the dealogue between them is not fully explained, and i just feel this part doesn't fit perfectly in the movie, they just put it to add some time and event. i specifically feel that those small important details are crammed in a way which it makes the movie less understandable. like how did the x-spy know martins real past when he said "what if he remembers everything?".i cant help but feel this movie is just scene after scene after scene not really interconnected with each other, this may be the most efficient way to shoot a movie but makes the movie less valuable than it potentially is, movies nowadays don't have this heaviness/richness that the good old ones had. and how did the martin Harris-es know the password (i mean the number code itself) to Bressler's work? and what operating system in the world are the using it seems its all the same software in all the movies, id die to use that instead of windows ;)

lets start with something positive...the dialog was kinda good.

now to the rest of the Cr@p, the movie was shallow sugar coated Sh1t. Same Scenarios! he even gets injured mid-play and healed by his coach, coach gets depressed because of dead family member, endless repeating of simple chores (mysteriously converted into Kungfu moves). they copied everything then modernized it. ending was the worst part the boy supposedly was injured in his leg, then made a 360 back flip, all that to avoid the original move of the pelican, this is just an example of many in the movie. proving that the movie industry would go just about anywhere to make easy money, even if it is irrational unrealistic, nonexistent, illogical and even unnatural, that movie was pathetic, they even froze the last frame like the good old days, and just when i thought the movie cannot get any worse, BAM a Justin Berber song, so thank God i watched that Cr@p online, i took precautions and i am fully relieved that i have took them. that is all i can recollect for now, i am sure there's lots of pieces of Sh1t crumbs dripping from my memory, but it was just too much gather in one mind.

i will jump right in firstly what i don't like about that movie: when the train stops at cooney island the cops instantly new the bad guys weren't on it HOW? it must have taken them a while to realize that, so thats just unrealistic, the outcome is that the 2 bad guys wouldn't be caught. another point that is unrealistic is the part where Ryder doesn't put a gun to Garbers head..WTF?! the guy did EVERYTHING right like a mastermind so its very unrealistic for that to happen, clearly the writer/producer just wanted that film to take his own way. in real life the bad guys would have won. he could have taken him hostage, killed him, or even wound his leg but he just trusted him to follow him. also Garbers bag that had the white plastic ring that had the gun inside, why the hell didn't get searched like the rest of the bags?

this review may contain what may be considered spoilers. news-flash any good review has to, what would i base my review on then, how can i make the reader convinced by my opinion? how would they know what I'm talking about? u silly IMDb.. i cant believe this mess got a 6.9 on IMDb and the same on RT,i am going there too and write a review, wow people are dumb... i heard this movie was a mess but i like the genre so i still saw it and guess what..IT is A FU*KING MESS. i saw the directors cut which i swear to god is 10x messier than the theatrical. i read the plot of the theatrical and its clear that this was the original best intended cut. i felt they just made the directors for the sake of it and stuffing, with completely different ending, they just wanted the movie to be longer but at the expense of making it CRA*PIER. this is one of those movies that u have to completely turnoff your brain to get entertained, this movie was illogical and unrealistic in the simplest of aspects. i wouldn't be so angry if it didn't get >6 rating. plus i wish john Cusack had better taste in movies, i also watched this movie for him. there's this one scene in the Dcut where they trick u making u thing everything was a dream but then goes back into being a part of the illusion. WHY?! pointless..this whole movie is just pointless and ill never watch a movie from a European director again.