Catch .44

Catch. 44 has a solid premise and visible Tarantino influences, but ends as a nonsensical mess that barely justifies its 90 minute runtime. Despite an unnecessary use non-linear storytelling, the film is rather interesting up until Whitaker's reveal in the diner (and subsequent accent change). From that point the film nose dives, being more Tarantino imitation than inspiration, with an ending that is contrived and meaningless.

From the first dialogue I had the idea this film tried enomously to become the next pulp fiction. Many tried, few succeeded. This one tried.

Trues to be the new pulp fiction. Neither story or dialogue come close.

30.000

eng; [catch .44]; nachdem sie den alten versiebt hatten, bekommen drei Mädchen einen neuen Auftrag, bei dem sie einen drogenkurier abfangen sollen - doch der Auftrag läuft anders als erwartet.;

I would describe this as Tarantino light, which people will get mad about, but I thought it was interesting in its own right.

Wants to be Tarantino. Close but no cigar.

I absolutely HATE when films are not in order. It's not a cinematic virtue; it's sloppy.

fantastic! brilliant acting from most *cough*malin akerman*cough* very interesting way to approach film making.

31.500

not bad! feel like one of tarantino's work!

Worth a watch.

The only thing I enjoyed was the violent bloody gun action. Forest Whitaker was also a decent performance. Other than that, It was incredibly boring, bad etc. It was like Pulp Fiction, Go, Snatch...etc. but lousy. Bruce Willis is disappointing and all in all, it is a boring, forgettable piece of trailer trash.

#12#, popcorn, story, casting.

really obvious tarantino-ripoff. made by someone who doesn't get tarantino, at all.

Tarantino rip-off, that only manages to get the soundtrack right.