This film had the potential to be the new pulp fiction, but it misses certain things. It got cool actors, a good plot and great music.

It is worth seeing, but the opening scenes made me hope for a super-great unforgettable movie, it was a little disappointing. The director borrows a lot from Tarantino and that is a good thing. I would like to see more speech action between the actors.

The ending could also have been a little more open.

Anyway, go see it. Cooler than a lot of other rubbish I have seen lately.

This director will probably make greater films in the future!

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.

There's quite a few claims that this film is a Tarantino rip-off. People are saying the lines and acting are terrible, and even that it's the "worst movie ever," etc. First, this is FAR from the WORST movie ever. If you're in that boat, you're either being overly dramatic, or you really haven't seen many bad films. The acting isn't horrible, but you might cringe a few times - and don't expect any awards nominations. Where the film really falls short is the (lack of) character development. We don't really have a lot of reasons or get the chance to care about the characters or what happens to them. And no, Bruce Willis doesn't dominate the screen. This film does have a Tarantino-feel, but it's obviously not a Tarantino, nor does it sell itself as such. I honestly went into this with zero expectations other than seeing the beautiful Deborah Ann Woll in something other than True Blood - Bruce Willis and Forest Whitaker being in the movie was a big, big plus. It's slower-paced and a bit predictable, but it's not bad. If you're expecting a fast-paced and/or "Tarantino brilliant" rehash of Die Hard-meets-Pulp Fiction/Reservoir Dogs, then you're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. You probably won't regret watching it, but there isn't anything too memorable about it either - save Whitaker's excellent Scarface-esque accent.