I love this movie so much

recommended

I'll tell you why so serious

Great visuals, story delivers no surprises

Follows the journey of John and Colt, gunfighters and sometimes lovers, on parallel but very different journeys through an underground dueling culture. Blunt Force Trauma is one of those films that you're 100% sure that is going to suck and as it turns out this isn't only one of the worst films ever made but also one of Mickey Rourke's worst films period. This guy starred in movies such as The Wrestler and The Expendables and now he just wastes 10 minutes of his life for some quick cash and for what? To say a few dumb lines and play with his pet or just shoot the main character? Who is almost as wooden as an actual Tree? Also why did Freida Pinto sign on to this? Her character acts like a tough chick and yet we see her getting f*cked like 10 times threw out the entire film? If that is called acting? Then i don't know anymore, Ryan Kwanten as i said is boring and very bland and the plot is just retarded it's basically a matter of life and death for them to actually shoot each other for the whole film? Really? Do not see, buy or rent this film ever in your life it's a waste of time, money and it will probably make you wanna shoot yourself in the face. (0/10)

For a movie with gun violence as the core activity, this is a very quiet, reflective piece. It is well scripted, well directed and well acted with no filler (no witty banter, ridiculous stunts, little humor, no f/x, etc). They do a good job of -not- glorifying the fights and maintaining suspense; at no point do I want to be in the main character's shoes. Along with Freida Pinto's character, I'm rooting for him to survive and work through his hopefully fleeting passion/obsession, not win the fights. Most of the time the positions he puts himself in just look like pointless death traps that I would rather not see him walk into (contrasted with a Jason Statham or Bond movie where it's fun to see how the protagonist manages to spectacularly untangle bad situations). The final fight is perfect - two accomplished warriors meet with nowhere to go and nothing to do but everything to prove. Kwanten did an outstanding job - his character was nothing like I've seen him do before but I doubt Eastwood in his prime could have done better. And Rourke was his character; it may not have been a creative leap for him but it served the story well which is all that matters.The weaknesses of the movie are also it's strengths: it has a very small # of relevant cast members and a very simple (but nearly perfect) story and script. So if it's not exactly your type of movie there's not going to be much in it for you.

Overall a decent and entertaining movie, as long as you employ "Suspension of Disbelief," but I'll leave the technical critique for the end. It was good to see Kwaten again (the main character's brother, "Jason," from "True Blood") and for the limited number of lines he was given, he was convincing. The concept of the film itself is interesting, and although the plot wasn't fully developed, it does have inertia. Other stars: Freida Pinto was great, and particularly gorgeous in this, but if you're seeing this movie because of Mickey Rourke's on the billing, don't - he's in about 4 minutes of it.Technically flawed: The movie's central plot of a dueling circuit essentially relies on all the fresh-off-the-street competitors to be perfect shots, whilst quick drawing and firing rapidly, which would be a difficult task for even a top tier competition marksman under that kind of pressure (but not as absurd as "The Walking Dead" in that regard). On a similar note, many of the "fighters'" gun choices would go through the vests the others use, especially when they lack trauma plates (and why would they NOT use trauma plates???), but again, this can all be filed under "overly critical" and put aside in the viewer's mind. (That's not a spoiler, one example is seen at minute 3 when someone has a Desert Eagle, and it was also glimpsed in the trailer).

No spoilers. Just an old reference.When I was younger, there was a thing called a "shaggy dog story".This movie has A LOT going for it. It has good character development, for example.Good basic plot.Good (although each mostly simple) complications to the plot.Some elements of the action were never adequately explained.But in the long run: too many things were not explained in the context. Many things seemed to happen with no rational motivation behind them.They all did lead to the end... but not in any logical manner.So, then comes the climax..."Shaggy dog story".