imdb users shame on you

almost every film gets bashed.
imdb become the place to go if u want to make something bad and bash it for (sometimes)no reason.
even if a movie just wants to entertain, and it does ,people will always make it bad for other reasons.i lost count how many "wortst movies ever " there are
according to this.
of course everybody has an opinion and is allowed to tell it,but people should focus on positive things,things they like.
i dont permanently visit boards of movies i thought "this is the worst movie ever".
i wonder if those people go to a restaurant for example,then they dont like the food but go there every day or so just to get mad about it.

Yep, this was goood movie. Well, script was allmost same that die hard 3 and Cena was totally wrong person to do Danny fisher role. But still, i enjoy to watch this movie.

And that shaking camera... guys, Renny is old "dude" so what u expect :)

7/10

pg13

Yeah, I agree with Sono. I just watched this movie for the first time today, and I thought it was amazing. I mean, compared to the Marine, John Cena's acting has come so far. I normally don't like action movies, but this is like my favorite one. I think that all the roles where cast perfectly and all the actors were believable. I think this movie has not gotten the credit that it deserves because of people not liking John Cena.

I dont know and I dont care if John Cena is or is not a wrestler. All I care about is how he does in movies when I am watching movies. I have not watched wrestling since 2003.

So.. we have Mark Walberg look alike except this one is pumped up like Arnold back in his Commando days. His face shows as much emotion as Keeanu... ohh wait neither can act so yes his acting abilities are not present in this and other movies that he was in. So...

Opening scene.. police officer? Are you kidding me? He looks like he does not belong in that uniform.

He then proceeds running around the city and getting into every possible action sequence that was borrowed from... well frankly every action movie that has ever been made. But I am going to forget about that for a second.

John is obviously an athletic type but yet his abilities are not capitalized on as one might expect. There is no parkour nor fighting nor jumping nor any display of any kind of physical activity.

So here they are casting a "sportsman" to do an action movie and he does not act AND he does not have action scenes.

Which part of this movie is there to like? I would say 90 percent of the movie because you immediately pick up things like... i saw this in speed and I saw this in die hard and I saw that in lethal weapon and I saw this in transporter and I saw that in... and when you are done calling out all the movies that have been incorporated into this one you start trying to appreciate other 10 percent of the movie for things like black guys not dying until end of the movie.

But then again... this movie lacked originality and acting and was full of WTF moments and when you are done trying to figure out what motivated you to spend so much time watching this "work of art" you really thank yourself that you did not go and watch this in a movie theater but instead picked this up from local blockbuster at 2am because you were drunk and bored and this was the only bad movie that you have not yet seen this year.

Just watched it yesterday (yeah, I'm late to this party...), and while it is decent entertainment, as far as mindless action movies go, my personal complaint against this movie is the fact that it felt way too much like a Die Hard 3 remake, with a scene that seemed pulled directly out of Speed. As I normally do after watching a movie, I look it up on wiki and imdb, and find out that it was written/produced/directed by people who also wrote/produced/directed Die Hard 2 and Speed. I must say I wasn't surprised.

Now, it's one thing to offer people action movies with little depth, but it's a whole other thing to take 2 or 3 previously successful ideas and try to merge them into a "new movie", which is not only predictable (we all knew how this was going to end before we even started the movie), but also leave the viewer with a distinct "deja vu" feeling, which is anything but good. If Scorcese was to make a movie named "Gangs of London", with essentially the same story as "Gangs of New York", but set in London instead, chances are even his fans wouldn't appreciate much. Heck, just look at Sin City 2's reception. It wasn't any worse than the first, in my opinion, but it wasn't any better either. It had nothing new, it offered nothing interesting to the movie aficionado. Just a second serving of left-overs, heated in the micro-wave.

To each their own, I guess.