Amazingly bad

I saw the trailer for this and it looked like it was going to be a fun action movie. It's not.

The movie is one of those movies like a Guy Ritchie, Luc Besson, Quentin Tarantino, Joe Carnahan movie. Take a bunch of characters, the call girl, hitwoman, private eyes, ect., and thow in some craziness and action.

The problem with the movie is that the movie on paper follows that formula, but the director for some reason decided to not follow the formula. The casting was wrong and messes with the tone of the movie. Is the movie an action comedy? It's not funny enough to be an action comedy. But the humor ruins the movie. Something like Snatch has humor, but because the cast is good and there's a enough believability that someone will be killed, that there's a realism to it. The guys aren't being funny in a silly way. The humor is playing off of the situations and the characters. In Cat Run the humor is trying to be funny. It feels out of place. It's two movies (actually more) bumping into each other and never fitting.

It seems like they wanted the movie to be out there. But if they wanted it to be funny and gonzo, they needed to up the comedy. Cause you have actors playing things very straight and acting like a crime movie. And then you have these over the top moments that don't fit with that tone.

The look of the movie is really bad. A movie like this is all about style. This movie looks like a straight to dvd Steven Segal or Van Damn movie. It needed a slicker look.

It would've been interesting to know what the script was like. The movie is a little confusing and hard to follow why everyone was doing what they were doing. The ending was really just a fizzle. And the Animal House ending, giving a short paragraph to say what happens to everyone felt tacked on and boring. They weren't funny and seemed a little obvious.

I just don't get how you can ruin a movie like this. It's been done so many times that you should've epicly fail. Even a movie like Lucky Number Slevin, which isn't a great movie, it still followed the formula and had a style to it. And John Stockwell's movies have had a good look to them. They might not be good, but they looked good. I don't know if this movie was a rush job, made with a tiny budget, so he was like, screw it and just made it look like a really cheap movie.

Sadly, I sat through the commentary, hopng to hear that the movie was a rush job, wanting to do something different. Or hear how things had to be changed or effected by lack of money. But like most commentaries, they talk as if this is a solid movie. Of course you're not going to bash your movie on a commentary, but you can talk about probems and compromises you had. The funny thing was that they talked about how instead of going for big names, they went for the bet actors. Were these really the best actors? It would've been interesting to know what big names might've been in this.

This is a movie that isn't worth your time. Janet McTeer is very good, but the movie isn't worth watching.