Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Boring, long, and too preachy.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Going ballistic might never have felt better for some, but it also might have never felt worse. Putting on an angry face and venting is not "acting" enough to convey emotions of an extreme caliber like that. If you're willing to cut the movie some slack on that, you might have more to be entertained with, but the overall notion of low quality acting, will not help its cause.Especially when trying to be complex, while keeping it simple. The stunts are pretty decent for a low budget movie, but it seems to go nowhere. The ending will just enhance that dreadful feeling you already had. And not in a good way either. Maybe the filmmakers can come up with something good in the future, this right here, will not cut it for most people

The camera work is impressive in some areas, capturing unique perspectives, but that's not the problem with this film. The problems, actually, are what follows.Where did all these reviews plastered on the poster come from? Are you kidding me? Who needs dialogue when you have long (to the point of awkward) actors and actresses staring off into nothing? We didn't need a plot, because: REASONS Nothing really made sense in this film, outside the fact that the lead antagonist was clearly insane.The "violence" and "brutality" of this movie was very boring and simple. No real structure to the action, so it's selling itself as a boring trip.If you want to see what a slow burning thriller should be like, watch A History of Violence. This film seems to attempt that kind of portrayal of a vigilante, but really, it's a failure of a horror film, shot in a way to show the perspectives of both cat and mouse, and boy are they both dull.I gave it a 2 for the camera work being impressive, like I said, but I'd rather regurgitate a full grown cat than watch this again.

Where to start......Some minor spoilers included.Unusual story-line, as if a teenager came up with it or someone young. LOT of violence and often a tad unrealistic. Continuity issues abound with an inability to tie story A in with story B.Ry Barrett needs some acting classes or not speak. He is the entire "B" end of this movie. The action was almost believable until you see a slip of a girl get the better of him...even though he can APPARENTLY teleport as that is the only way to explain the cut scenes from him to her, with him catching up to her.The man can beat down a 280lb 6'4 man, but struggles with a partially crippled 24 year old. Then you hit the cinematography. It was dead on ! Syfy should hire the camera crew for it's crap-tastic films as anything else would have made this a "yawner" regardless of the OVER THE TOP violence that was the way the "rage" was writtenSO !if you wish to view a movie, done in a world where cellphones only exist during the day, mad men can cover hundreds of yards in a blink, chasing hurt female runners who figure abandoning a baby and not calling the police is an A-OK! idea while the DEMOLISHER! clearly use an untold psychic skill to locate and chase prey for hours, THEN Add in a scene with a pervy, poorly acted, mechanic because story lines are for the peasants, then THIS is the movie for you !I think someone discovered the term "Avant Garde" and started writing and this was what came out and it FAILED.1 star for the movie, but a 3 because of the cinematography. I would not recommend this to someone I disliked

I wanted to like this. In fact, I wanted to love this. An homage to John Carpenter and the action revenge films of the 1970s and 80s? Sign me up! Unfortunately, director Gabriel Carrer is not nearly skilled enough to helm this kind of project. In fact, this is the most amateur film I've ever seen screened at the Vancouver International Film Festival. I understand what Carrer was going for with this take on the vigilante justice gone too far, and the idea had potential. But every scene was so heavy- handed, there's not a single moment where a character acts in a natural manner. Every line of dialogue is horrendously written, it's hard to know if the actors are terrible, or its just the script. I'd like to give the actors the benefit of the doubt. But despite the amateur script and direction, I was OK with The Demolisher being a "too ambitious for its own good" disaster. That would have been fine. But then came the 40 minute chase scene, which had our heroine running frantically through the streets of downtown Toronto at night. Instead of going directly to the police or even, say, a car with people in it, the girl runs past police cars, past groups of people, and past open businesses. She opts for the safer route, an abandoned shopping mall, the upper level no less, then an underground parking lot, a gang of murderous thugs who can "smell that she's a virgin", and finally a desolate rooftop. This was the most unintentionally hilarious chase scene I've ever witnessed. Audience members were cackling with every insane decision she made. And it would have made for great comedy were it not so deadly serious about its intentions as a serious film. And that's really the fatal flaw with The Demolisher. It should be a grindhouse exploitation classic, tongue-in-cheek and self aware, something akin to Hobo With A Shotgun. Instead, the director tries to give us realism and gritty raw emotion, which he proves hilariously inept at doing. Clocking in at just under 85 minutes, this somehow manages to be the longest and most aggravating excuse for a movie I've seen all year. 1/10