Assault On Precinct 13 Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Unite and fight.
When bad boys turned heroes.
The only people more dangerous that the hardened criminals... are the cops.
On New Year's Eve, inside a police station that's about to be closed for good, officer Jake Roenick (Hawke) must cobble together a force made up cops and criminals to save themselves from a mob looking to kill mobster Marion Bishop (Fishburne).
| Ethan Hawke | Roenick |
| Laurence Fishburne | Marion Bishop |
| John Leguizamo | |
| Maria Bello | Alex Sabian |
| Drea de Matteo | Iris Ferry |
| Ja Rule | Smiley |
| Peter Bryant | Lieut. Ted Holloway |
| Gabriel Byrne | Marcus Duvall |
| Fulvio Cecere | Ray Ray |
| Kim Coates | Rosen |
| Matt Craven | Capra |
| Courtney Cunningham | Cop #1 |
| Brian Dennehy | Jasper O'Shea |
| Hugh Dillon | Tony |
| Tig Fong | Danny Barbero |
| Darren Frost | Mover #1 |
| Jasmin Geljo | Marko |
| Jean-François Richet |
6.30 out of 10 (13361 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Very Very Very Average
posted on 22 Aug 2009I really wanted to like this film - I wasn't expecting an epic classic but I certainly expected more than I got! Overall I would say its a very average action flick. The characters, with the possible exception of Laurence Fishburns, were lacking and I truly didn't care about there fates.Towards the end I was just hoping it would hurry up and be over. I've not seen the original but I wont be put off after seeing this - I understand they are pretty different and generally I quite like Carpenters films.I'm not one of these people who automatically dislikes remakes, The Ring, Grudge etc were very good remakes but this seemed like a waste of time.It reminded me of some of the poor quality action flicks from the 80s, but in this day and age it just doesn't deliver the goods.One redeeming feature on the DVD was that the DTS sound was quite good. That can make a good film even better but it cant make a bad film good.I wouldn't say I hated this film, just didn't like a while lot about it either. Overall I've given it 4 out of 10.
Good enough entertainment, that's all.
posted on 18 Aug 2009A notorious crime figure (Laurence Fishburne as Marion Bishop ) is finally nabbed, but on his way to the main jail the police van is diverted because of really bad New Year's Eve winter weather. It happens to be to the precinct 13 building which is to be permanently closed down the next day. So, it has a skeleton crew, led by Ethan Hawke as desk Sgt. Jake Roenick , expecting to just spend a quiet evening with a low key celebration to bring in the new year. What seemed incongruous to me is that such a notorious criminal would be sent there without appropriate police reinforcements. Anyway, the whole of the movie, as the title tells us, is an assault, on New year's eve, on precinct 13 to get at Marion Bishop. Maria Bello has a good role as a police therapist stranded there. And Brian Dennehy as the retiring policeman.SPOILERS: The assumption by all, audience and characters alike, that Bishop's men are trying to break him out. Nope! It was a band of bad cops, who were in business with Bishop, and were intent on killing him before he had a chance to expose them. Maybe that's why no reinforcements were sent to Pct. 13, because Bishop was diverted there by the bad cops. So the whole "battle" is to see if the small crew of men and women, even enlisting the help of several petty prisoners, can hold off the bad cops who seem equipped to fight a whole rogue nation. Turns out Dennehy, who leads them to "safety" via a tunnel, is in with the bad cops, and leads the group into a trap. The good guys prevail anyway, only Bishop and Hawke's character survive, they part in the snowy woods.
Good remake but JC still rules
posted on 12 Aug 2009Seen it and yes its good, a nice way to update the film as trying to get away with the gang like films of the 70s and 80s would not go well these days(remake of warriors on way mind)but i do think its a case of the low costs on JC version made the film, add the music and it just has a better feel to it, hard to put finger on it but it is a film which the cheap one works better, look at blair witch, no money good film, second one lots of money ahem! rather crap film, some films just sit better with no frills to them, and make up for this with acting/story/flow/music, don't get me wrong go see this its good but see the JC version to and see what you think.
Interesting homage to Carpenter original, refreshing idea
posted on 11 Jul 2009I am big fan of John Carpenter since my youth age, but for me the real Carpenter era ended with the movie "They Live". Even the later works was quite fine, the "Vampires" I really don't like that much. However I am always excited about any new movie Carpenter make, because in any of them there is always "piece" of Carpenter. Same goes with the remakes, that are mostly low than average result, except some of them that are substantial. Maybe it is because of my big expectations or because I always try to find scent of real Carpenter in them. But Carpenter is Carpenter, you cannot copy him.Anyway, original "Assault on precinct 13" is a movie that I already watched dozen times, so I did not expect to find any similarity in any segment in this remake, but I was curious to see how Jean-François Richet design the intensity of the plot and characters developing. Based on the earlier Carpenter movie, and made on screenplay of James DeMonaco, the movie only recall the nostalgia on Carpenter masterpiece. I was really surprised watching so many known actors, and they make their work pretty good, all of them. As for this movie, it is actually very good, but important is to not compare it in any segment with original, but only as a unique work that represents core of the original idea.At first I was disappointed with the stating scene in the movie, which ends with the assassins of two colleagues of leading character Sgt. Jake Roenick played by ambitious Ethan Hawk, but then I realized how director made good development of leading character with that, and I was satisfied. This goes to the general development of the characters, their mutual relation and the whole concept of the movie.In the original the core element in creation of the plot was character of the father of little girl (assassinated by one of the members of the gang), and in this movie we have main bad guy character (played by excellent Laurence Fishburne). I don't want to make absolute spoiler here, so I will not continue to uncover it for those who did not see that movie yet.At the end just as conclusion how hard is to try make remake of something rare in movie industry. Maybe director did not try to beat the original, but it was very well made and gave us descent memory on what Carpenter once made, with refreshing piece of good thrill.
An entertaining way to watch everyone shoot at each other!
posted on 15 Jun 2009Assault on Precinct Thirteen is the usual run-of-the-mill action flick, you have bad guys, guns, (few) girls, and a plot where you don't know who the bad guy is. It starts out with (a bald) Ethan Hawke and he is a undercover cop, who is in a drug sting (or something of those sorts) gone wrong. He looses his team and he is the only to survive. Years later (plus a full head of hair) he is a run down town cop who works in a small precinct (Precinct 13). It's new years and they are being shut down because of a new Precinct thats bigger and better is now opened and running them out of business. But on the same day the cops catch a notorious mobster (Lawrence Fishburne). He is then transported to another prison but due to bad weather the bus has to stay the night at Precint 13. Him and a few other prisoners are locked up. This is where it all begins. Men in ski masks start attacking the precinct trying to kill the poisoner's and the cops inside. These are dirty cops attacking it because they have connections with Fishburne and he doesn't want him revealing them (or something like that). And it's a big shoot 'em up from then on out. This movie will keep most people's attention, but it's really just for people who like action movies. Hawke and Fishburne both give good performances, and there is a little bit of comedy thrown into all this. Although sometimes I wonder why the building doesn't ever fall apart due to how old it is? Any way it's a great movie for when your bored and it was also one of the first action films to come out this year (January 19, 2005). So it wasn't a bad start for action films this year. MY Grade: B-
A competent action film
posted on 13 Jun 2009I will fess up now and admit that I have not seen either John Carpenter's original production of Assault On Precinct 13, nor Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, upon which both are based. Carpenter himself has, in a manner of speaking, remade his Assault On Precinct 13 with Ghosts Of Mars, so there is a small basis for comparison. Where Ghosts Of Mars demonstrated that Carpenter knows how to film a tense and powerful film, this update of Assault On Precinct 13 is far from tense. Truth be told, it is so straightforward that observant viewers will pick all of the so-called plot twists a mile off. Fortunately, it has a good stock of saving graces that keep it from being a write-off. Given that this is the first English language film for Jean-François Richet, it shows a fair bit of promise. It also shows once again that European directors are capable of making an interesting film where American, Australian, or even British directors will not.The plot of both Assaults On Precinct 13, to a large extent Ghosts Of Mars, and I will assume Rio Bravo, are basically alike. It is in the details where these films showing two small forces that are polar opposites against a larger, better-organised opponent make their mark. In the case of Assault On Precinct 13 circa 2005, the film tries to distinguish itself by adding a lot of details where its predecessor reputedly kept things short, sharp, and to the point. The real question is whether it works. Sometimes it does, and does so well, but there are also a few times when it really does not. A good example of when the new Assault On Precinct 13 does not work is when Brian Dennehy, one of the few actors in this remake who is old enough to have been in the original (he was not - his asking price was probably too high at the time), conveniently announces he has found a way out of the precinct via the basement. This deus ex machina not only deflates the tension of the ending a lot, it retroactively deflates the tension of the rest of the film.On the positive side, director Jean-François Richet is not shy about showing the consequences of violent actions. On two occasions in the film, characters are shot in the head. The resulting shots with the camera zooming away from faces that have a massive hole in the upper middle are enough to burn the film permanently on your retina or memory. The problem there is that they also leave one wishing the rest of the film could have excelled like those shots. Ethan Hawke struck me as the worst possible choice for a lead in this project, but he portrays the main hero with such an excellent arc that it is easy to forgive the myriad of turkeys he has before appeared in, at least for a hundred and nine minutes. Lawrence Fishburne is just barely young enough to have not been suitable for the original Assault, but the renegade prime target for the new besiegers is a role he slips into so comfortably, you will think he was born to play it. Gabriel Byrne is somewhat weak in his role as the evil leader, but this can be blamed on his appalling lack of screen time. When he is given the chance to speak, he is very good at holding one's attention.I have tried to remain objective so far, but the choice of music in the end credits could not have been worse. To call one half of the end credit roll annoying is understating things. Thankfully, Graeme Revell does such an awesome job of countering this with a tight event-based score that it is almost enough to forgive him for involving himself with turkeys like Street Fighter. It is his music that makes the Mexican standoff scene a little over halfway through the film work. Another aspect that makes the film work is the cinematography. While there are rarely more than two heads in a frame, camera motion is used correctly for a change in order to increase the tension. The dolly focus shot a third of the way into the film puts one directly into Roenick's boots to a far greater extent than a thousand shaky-cam POV shots ever could. I do not think I will ever run out of ways to express how superior European directors are because of the general lack of shaky-cam in their work. The fact that no shot in the film is zoomed in too close to actually see how the focus of the shot is interacting with others also helps a lot. What we have here, therefore, is a competently-executed action film the likes of which we have not seen since the late 1980s.This is not enough to make Assault On Precinct 13 circa 2005 a classic, but it is enough for me to give it a seven out of ten. If the director manages to keep the same artistic sensibility he displayed on this film for the rest of his career, there is no telling how far he could go.
whoever green-lighted this one should have been fired
posted on 11 Jun 2009One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I have a hard time imagining that any of the major actors read the script before accepting their roles. Both Hawk & Fishburne are capable of so much more, have their careers really sunk so low that they have to make this kind of garbage? The characters were such one-dimensional clichés, it's no wonder that the only attempt at character development was a gratuitous shoot out at the beginning which had nothing to do with the rest of the film The story was unbelievable. Scrambled cell phone signals? Calling in helicopter support without anyone else in the department noticing? A forest magically appearing in the middle of inner city Detroit? It's pretty insulting that the producers thought so little of their audience's intellect.
Swiss cheese
posted on 26 May 2009Saw Assault on Precinct 13 at the $2 theater and I was over-charged. I hate plot holes. Remember "Die Hard 2" where the planes keep circling Dulles airport ready to run out of gas when there are 3 other airports within 50 miles? Well, SP13 has more holes than Swiss cheese. Other reviews have explained most the weak points, but I'll add a few more. Like "Jaws 3", where you root for the shark, you don't miss the characters as they get killed off two-by-two. The corrupt SWAT team adopts a kung-fu assault where they send in the cops one at a time as the others stand around. Hawk sits in his office drinking booze when you'd think he'd be guarding the door. And since they couldn't crawl through an air-conditioning duct to escape they had to walk through a utility tunnel. The most gruesome head shot was what this movie did to the audience.
Much better than the original !
posted on 18 May 2009I saw this movie about one year ago. My first thought appeared before playing the movie and it was that the movie it's gonna be a bad remake, non-comparable to the original. My second thought appeared after a short time from the beginning and it was that the movie is kind of boring, so I thought I was right... it's a bad remake... But I told my self "What the hell, I started watching, let's see it till it ends !" So I continued watching it. ...What can I say... my final thought appeared after the movie ended and it was that I was right about something... it wasn't comparable with the original. It was much, much better. I like Carpenter's movies, especially because most of them are kind of bizarre. "Assault On Precinct 13" was one of them, somehow. I liked it a lot. I won't talk about the difference of effects between the movies, because it isn't fair. Since 1976 till 2005 many things changed. The difference between those two movies that I want to point is that the new one had a very logical and a very well written scenario. It wasn't kind of chaotic like the old one was. The cast of characters was made with good and well known actors and it was completed by Ethan Hawke and Laurence Fishburne which proved once again that they really ARE actors. I'm disappointed that the new one is not better seen in statistics than the old one. My opinion is that it's much better than the old one.So, I advice anyone who reads this post... Watch the 2005's "Assault on Precinct 13". It worths all the money !
Sloppy, boring remake
posted on 12 May 2009I didn't have much hope for this when I when went to Copenhagen to see this remake of the '76 film, which isn't a masterpiece itself, but highly entertaining and one of Carpenter's best. So when I came out of the theater, I wasn't that disappointed. It was as bad as I thought it would be. Hollywoodized for the average viewer's enjoyment. Quick cuts and flashy shots. It doesn't take its time to tell the story.One of the problems is the clichés. I almost laughed when Jasper (Brian Dennehy) said "I'm retiring in two days", or something of the sort. You just know that he'll be dead before the credits roll. Also, even the biggest retard in the audience can figure out halfway through the movie that he's a bad guy.Another thing is that the situation is not believable. In the original "Assault" it was crazed gang members that was attacking the station, but now it's 33 top trained S.W.A.T. members. No way can 8 people hold them off. But I guess it's the corrupt cop's (played by a very dull Gabriel Byrne) own damn fault; First he sends three S.W.A:T.'s in to take care of business, and when they get killed off, what does he do then? He sends in three more! If he would just send in all their guys at once, Ethan Hawke and co. would be dead and buried 45 minutes into the film and I wouldn't have missed my train home. And that brings me to the likable characters. There aren't any. When Beck, a paranoid junkie who won't shut up, is the most likable of the bunch, you know it's bad. For instance, there's the annoying, playboy pin-up psychologist. Or the convict who refers to himself in the third person (how totally funny). Laurence Fishburne does what he can with this, but I'm getting tired of him.And Ja Rule does an extremely poor job. Why do people keep hiring rappers/singers in movies? They don't make good actors, with few exceptions like Meat Loaf's Bob in Fight Club and Björk's Selma in Dancer in the Dark.This remake doesn't have the charm or watch-ability as the original "Assault" has, and Lars doesn't like that.3/10
This movie just makes me angry!
posted on 24 Apr 2009Gah! This movie is "Panic Room" all over again! Terrific actors, cool setting, suspenseful beginning -- I really thought I was going to like it -- and then it all goes to hell once we find out the infiltrator's story! Not that it was a surprise since the trailers had already decided to ruin the movie and tell me the invaders were bad cops intent on killing a mob boss who would become informant, but unfortunately, this movie is full of easy-to-guess plots and circumstances that just plain make ya angry! I usually try to leave spoilers out of reviews but I can't help but mention some of the unforgivable flaws in this movie. For example, if you can't figure out who the traitor is in Precinct 13 in the first few minutes of the assault, then you need to watch more movies. But the thing that turns me off the most about this movie was that near the end, the building is set on fire, and the traitor lures the remaining Precinct 13 defenders through a basement sewer tunnel into a trap where the bad cops are waiting. So my question is WHY DIDN'T HE BLEEPITY-BLEEP DO THAT IN THE BEGINNING?! Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, your smart aleck answer is because there wouldn't be a two hour movie. Maybe your answer is because the firemen would interfere, and they do respond to the fire, but how the heck were they notified? I thought the bad cops shut off all phone lines, radio transmissions, power, and ANYTHING that allowed communication with the outside world. Bah! Thinking about this movie will just infuriate me more. There is only one positive thing I have to say: Congratulations for killing the shrink! She was well on her way to the cliché "we're trapped in an impossible situation, so let's get to know each other and fall for each other" love story. I was genuinely shocked when they shot her in the head halfway through the movie. I just knew we were going to be treated with a "Gremlins" story about fathers getting stuck in chimneys, followed with her coming out of that thing like Bruce Willis' wife in "Die Hard." So congratulations to the filmmakers for shocking the hell out of me with that event. I just wish it hadn't been the only one.
This Is Pretty Good
posted on 02 Apr 2009Now let me say this straight off: I have never seen the original and am reviewing this movie as a stand-alone movie.Overall, this movie is pretty good! It has action, drama, and that little touch of comedy here and there that every movie needs.The movie mostly has a dark setting and is very quiet. This movie revolves around a police station where everyone is being held inside, even every prisoner. They are not being held inside by force, they are being held inside by assassins around the outside of the station.The acting in this movie is very solid as it establishes enough about the characters for me to actually feel a bit of compassion for them.This is one of the best action films of 2005 and it at least warrants a viewing at the 99 cent theater.
"Our sh*ts on Pause"
posted on 21 Mar 2009Sgt. Roenick is jockeying a desk after an undercover bust leaves his team dead and a bullet in his leg. His job is simple, finish packing up a defunct precinct on its last night and enjoy New Years Eve. But when a horrible snowstorm reroutes a con-bus carrying an assortment of criminals to Precinct 13 all hell breaks loose. One of the cons is cop-killer crime boss Bishop who is the target of a faceless group of thugs trying to bail him out...or are they?On its own merits it isn't a bad film, horribly clichéd maybe, but not bad. It has plenty of action, decent but unexceptional acting and a rather surprising amount of headshots. Direction was good for the most part, some of the hand-held action was out of place, but nothing horribly wrong. Good sound design permeates the attack sequences. Most of the technical stuff was good in a middle-of-the-road sort-of fashion. That said, it still doesn't hold a candle to the original, this time around is mostly a re-imagining that well not fresh, isn't a bad problem. I think what I missed most was the relentless pace at which the original's last 40 or so minutes were. This time the cops had way too much time to kill and what little character buildup was light for the most part.***Original spoiler*** The famous execution pf the little girl scene is not present. Nor did I ever think they would try. That is something we will never see in any type of Hollywood flick. ***end spoilers***I give a 7/10 for being an entertaining film, which is really all I could ask for.
Inevitable comparisons to the original, but nonetheless enjoyable
posted on 19 Mar 2009This remake of the classic 1976 John Carpenter effort will no doubt get the movie buffs coming out the closet and I must confess that the first thing the movie did was make me want to see the original again. So i did. And I have to admit that this more Hollywood friendly version does bear scrutiny.My original feeling was that the 2005 remake was trying to cram too many layers into the plot and that the original version was a stripped back, raw effort that benefited from it's low-fi feel. However when I watched it again I have to admit it would have been pretty dull to remake it with the gang tensions of the late Seventies and this more police-biased remake actually has a lot going for it.The opening sequence with Hawke is superb and builds a credible background to the disaffected cop. Both female interests, Maria Bello (Hawke's police psychiatrist) and Drea De Matteo (streetwise, gun-toting secretary) turn in contrasting and strong performances. However, the star of the show is Fishburne, whose commanding presence as the crime-lord Bishop with his ambiguous, mercenary code of ethics, make for some interesting conflicts with Hawke. John Leguizamo also adds a bit of pathos and off-beat craziness to the whole effort as an incarcerated drug-addict, and Gabriel Byrne reprises his cop-gone-bad routine.Overall it's an action-packed movie with some twists and turns and strong character performances. Todays audiences by and large demand fast-paced action, great photography and gritty dialogue with a multi-layered plot... and for the most part you get it with this film. In doing so unfortunately some of the 'pin-drop' tension and suspense from the original version's 'emptiness' is lost along the way. I don't think this is a classic but it's certainly worth a trip to the cinema to enjoy it 'full-screen' ... oh and at least that annoying early-80s electronica soundtrack from the original has gone (although i'm sure there'll be some that think that was a classic too!).
A very good thriller...
posted on 01 Mar 2009I found this to be a movie well done. Finally an action film that is a little more realistic, where the special effects aren't over the top and where they serve a purpose in the plot, and not a movie which is simply a vehicle for an endless array of ridiculous never ending stunts. The characters are well developed, so that we can actually care what happens to them. And most importantly, this movie has tons of tension and is rather unpredictable, which makes it very, very enjoyable. The tension comes mainly from the script, and depends largely on some very good acting of almost all involved (Lawrence Fishburne is absolutely great in his role, although his character is rather simplistic, he manages to create a memorable persona and definitely steals every scene he is in, unlike Ethan Hawke).All in all, a very good thriller, highly recommended, but not for the faint of heart...
The Best Non-Stop Action Movie!
posted on 25 Feb 2009Assault on Precinct 13Starring: Ethan Hawke, Laurence Fishburne, John Leguizamo, Ja Rule and Drea de MatteoGenre: Action/Drama/Crime/ThrillerRated RAssault on Precinct 13 is a remake of a movie with the same title that came out in 1976. On New Year's Eve, inside a police station that's about to be closed for good, but when a group of dirty cops come to hunt down and destroy the police in the old precinct in Detroit, Jake Roenick (Ethan Hawke) must try and take down these dirty cops! Even if that included getting help from some criminals with Marion Bishop (Laurence Fishburne). But the dirty cops were after Marion Bishop mainly because the person he was working with was getting greedy and wanted more in their deal. So it's up to Jake and Marion to take these guys down! This movie had a lot of thrills but they showed too many parts where people where getting shot in the head which was a bit gross because I don't like too much blood thrown around everywhere. But it was still really cool with a lot of way past cool action!
Terrible....simply terrible
posted on 01 Feb 2009OK, here is the deal. I love action movies and generally have no problem suspending a great deal of disbelief over plot holes or other implausible actions. However, this movie went far beyond minor flaws and went straight to the ridiculous. Let me get this straight. The police send a notorious gangster and cop killer (along with a number of other prisoners) on a bus with a grand total of two guards. They then are forced to stop at a precinct where precisely two cops are working, one of which is a day away from retirement and the other is a burn out. Apparently the building was about to be shut down so somehow the police decided that everyone else in the entire precinct got the night off for new year's eve. Right. But wait, it gets better. Gabriel Byrne shows up to take out Fishburne before he can rat him and other dirty cops out. (although we never find out anything about their relationship or dealings). Interestingly, the cops launching the assault on the precinct are in full SWAT gear with night vision goggles, assault rifles, the whole nine yards. Later on they even bring in a helicopter with MORE people in full gear. I'm not a cop, but I'm pretty sure you can't just waltz out of the station with an entire swat platoon worth of equipment without someone asking what you are doing. And the police helicopter??? In the supposedly terrible winter storm??? Also, no one near the precinct happens to hear or see this major siege going on with flash grenades and heavy rifle fire going off? I mean seriously, come on. I know this is set in Detroit, but even there it would raise suspicion on a supposedly top secret mission. I also love the fact that they find a Tommy Gun in the evidence room and somehow the gun still works and has bullets that are still intact and usable.I could live with some of these problems if there weren't other glaring issues also. For one, the opening couple minutes of the movie are shot nicely in a very frenetic and hyperactive way and I thought was going to set the tone for the rest of the movie. Unfortunately I was wrong. The remainder of the film has no sense of pacing or tension or drama. The "characters" don't relate to each other in any way which is probably largely due to the fact that they aren't particularly interesting. There isn't enough interesting action to make this a good action movie, and there isn't enough character development/storytelling to make this a passable thriller/drama. The "relationship" between Hawke/Fishburn is the only thing that the director even tries to make interesting or intense. Oh and by the way, the final scene in the wilderness? Uh, I thought this was in the middle of a run down industrial section of Detroit and suddenly we are in the woods?? The acting isn't terrible in this movie, it is just that the directing and writing are atrocious. I really enjoy some of Hawkes, Fishburne, Byrne, Dennehy's other movies but this one is terrible.
Blah, blah, blah
posted on 18 Jan 2009I just saw the movie this evening. There have been lots of debates going on here about remakes, the use of "dirty cops" as villains, etc. - and it's all a waste of energy. This is a terrible movie!! The dialog is the most stilted cliché crap I've ever heard in a film. The acting was ridiculously hokey. It was nothing but a series of gory, unmotivated violent events strung together by a horrible attempt at a plot. Someone called it a "character study" - I still haven't discovered a character in it developed enough to study! Bad, bad, bad. Save your time and energy, and, I don't know, plant a tree, knit a sweater, get some elective surgery - anything; just don't see this movie.
Wonderful Thriller
posted on 27 Dec 2008My friends and I rented this movie with no idea on what it is. We just rented this because we wanted to watch an action flick and with limited time to decide. It turned out it was a whole lot better than we expected. This movie kept me biting my finger nails and shaking my knees throughout its entire running time. A cop, burden with survivor's guilt over the loss of his team traded his field job for one behind a desk. He blames himself for the loss of his team. However, the situation repeats when a bus full of prisoners was forced to stop at his precinct with an infamous criminal. The problem turn out of control when the precinct becomes under attack. This movie was completely unpredictable, filled with a lot of action, some awesome gun fighting, and some bad-ass characters. It was Awesome! The director did a wonderful job, the cast is excellent, and the story was hands down the best. There's nothing more you can ask from a this thriller.
Most of this movie will keep you thinking, "This is not what I wanted to see."
posted on 24 Aug 2009You expect it to be juvenile but you at least expect a complete and coherent movie. What a waste. I am extremely disappointed, not at just having watched a bad movie, but at having such a great concept be tainted by a common movie that we've all seen before. If this crud makes $1 over its budget, The studio would be wise to declare victory, round up all available copies, store them deep within the nuclear waste repository under Yucca Mountain, and then never make another movie like it again. Most of this movie will keep you thinking, "This is not what I wanted to see." This film appeals to the unintelligent and maybe to teenagers. It's a true shame because most movies are made for that demographic. I had much higher hopes for this film.