I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

While "Catch .44" has an incredibly simple storyline, it does have some rather interesting elements; the way that the story was put together with usage of present and past events. But what really carried the movie was some really good acting performances.The story is about Tes, Kara and Dawn who decide to interfere with a drug Exchange, hoping to get their hands on either a large amount of cash or drugs. But the three women find themselves at a remote dinner at 3 o'clock in the night when everything is about to go down.Forest Whitaker was phenomenal in this movie and he alone makes the movie worthwhile to watch. It was also nice to see Bruce Willis in a bad guy role for a change."Catch .44" is driven by a phenomenal parade of acting performances. The movie could have taken on many more dimensions, were it not limited to playing out in a single diner. But director Aaron Harvey did manage to piece together a wholehearted movie.This movie is well-worth watching if you enjoy a fast-paced and entertaining movie, despite its simplicity.

Quentin Tarrintino. There, I said it. I got it out the way straight away. It's just you can't really talk about Catch 44 without mentioning the man in some way. Catch 44 is so 'Pulp Fiction inspired' that you'll be expecting Samuel L Jackson to pop up in a gimp mask at any time.Instead of a predominantly male cast, Catch 44 centres on three female drug smugglers and what happens when one of their (supposedly routine) drop-offs goes very wrong. That's about the extent of the plot. I've read in other reviews phrases like 'the film stretches a single scene out for the entire ninety minutes.' And they're not far off it.The whole film is - technically - set in a diner (the location for the illegal exchange). What other parts of the film come in flashbacks and repeats of the initial scene, over and over again. This has picked up more than a little criticism from some as being repetitive and annoying.I didn't think it was that bad. Granted, Catch 44 is no Pulp Fiction, but I found it entertaining enough to watch for an hour and a half. One thing you should know is that Bruce Willis (despite featuring heavily on all major advertising) is in it for about ten minutes. The story is mainly about the girls. Forest Whitaker does his best to inject some much-needed characterisation, but really, the lack of any forward momentum is the film's major downfall.My advice: know what you're getting. This is no masterpiece, but it's not quite as bad as some of the reviews make it out to be. It just could have been a lot better, based on the star-power that seemed to be attached to the project.

I assume the money offered to the actors was just too much to pass up. Too bad, because what the movie had going for it with this great cast, is totally wasted on a pretty shallow and predictably slow (and I do mean slow) moving script. Why do some writers insist on directing their own scripts? I did watch the entire movie anticipating that I would at least see a few good scenes but to no avail. The movie was a total bore. The only actor that I would give any compliment to would be Forest Whitaker. He did an admirable job of trying to add some depth to his character as he played one of Bruce Willis's go to guys to clean up messes and bring in new talent. I do enjoy Bruce Willis's body of work, but dear Bruce, you let your fans down and succumbed to the big pay cheque to star in this disappointing movie. This is not a movie worth saying very much about other than it was oh so slow, with a poor musical score, and a big bore.

Aaron Harvey, the writer and director of Catch .44 wants to be Quentin Tarantino so bad that he has transformed himself into a zeroxed black & white copy of the great man. Evident by this film, which barely was given a theatrical release last winter and is now out on DVD and blu-ray to sucker unsuspecting poor souls who are going to say, well it's got Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker in it, how bad can it be. Trust me, it can be bad, it can be real bad.One of the executive producers is David Willis, can you guess who's brother this is. I suspect that David got on board this picture, and brother Bruce did him a solid by appearing in it, thus not only giving the movie credibility which it did not deserve, but also attracting other name actors. It should be noted though, that Willis is not the film's star despite what the marketing tries to convince you of, in fact, he has a rather small role. At least it can be said, he has the movie's best role, which still falls short of memorable.Filled with lots of lackluster dialogue used in long uninteresting speeches, filtered with endless profanities, used by lowlife characters. This picture knows what it wants, to be a Tarantino film, just doesn't have the slightest idea of how to achieve it. The movie begins in a diner, is filled with flashbacks, has grindhouse style cuts and fade-outs, and even goes for a cool/hip ironic post modern sense of humor, evident in a scene where characters listen to a old cassette tape of Bruce Willis music from the 80's, ho ho. Filled to the gills with unresolved loose ends and dead ends. If this is all too much for me to stand, and I have a pretty high tolerance for this sort of stuff, I really pity the poor soul that rents/buys this thing believing that, well it has Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker in it, how bad can it be. You've been warned.