Catch.44 (2011)

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

I didn't see this film before now, because of the bad criticism here on IMDb, and since I've seen Bruce Willis in some rather bad movies for the latter years. But this is not all bad. It's rather entertaining.OK, this is a Tarantino-like film in more than one way, and it is by no way a perfect film, but it is a debut feature by Aaron Harvey. We must credit him for getting both Willis and Whitaker on board. The story is confusing. It's meant to be. Otherwise it would be just another of those movies. But movies which doesn't follow a linear Hollywood dramatic model struggles with getting good reviews and ratings here.But this film is worth watching if you like entertainment and not so obvious stories. There's a considerable body-count and some great Tarantinoish dialogs. Enough to entertain me. The film isn't slow, but quite talkative, and I think it keeps interest, if you're able to follow the many time lapses.We meet the main gangster and three young women doing a job for him. We also meet another bad guy, ready to use the gun. But things go awfully wrong along the way. Who's fooling who?A talented film maker, which needs more help with manuscripts, and we can wait promising things from Harvey. After the first end credit's there is a start of a continuation. I wish it would have gone even further inside this door. Still I'll be there if there's a sequel even if XXX is killed off...

Although it flashes some big names such as Forest Whittaker and Bruce Willis, this is far from a blockbuster hit. The setup of the movie was good, and the three beautiful actresses did help to hold your attention, but the storyline was very weak. I liked how they setup each scene similar to Pulp Fiction, where they would show a glimpse of the future and then flash back to another time. The plot was just very, very weak and the ending was to predictable for me. It's not a movie I'd watch again, but could be worth a first viewing. There is very little action, but the opening five minutes will draw you in and keep you watching.

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.

With the exception of the excellent performance from Forest Whitaker Catch .44 has very little to offer. This crime flick really don't have much of a story , and goes the route of ripping off Quentin Tarantino by dragging it out with the overuse of flashbacks. While not as goofy as a Tarantino film , he is an obvious influence .Even Bruce Willis can't save this sinking ship as it centers on three(very hot, but largely uninteresting ) girls who are on a job to steal money from a huge dope deal. The movie however is not dope and now I know why this went direct to video ,it sucks. Catch .44 chooses style over substance and is a waste of the talents of Forest Whitaker and Bruce Willis.