Hit Me

I sometimes pick brilliant movies when I stray away from the main stream. This time, I didn't.

The editing is sleep inducing, the plot leaves you wondering, the locations suck, everything about this movie screams "low budget". A low budget shouldn't be a reason to avoid a movie, but this stinker makes it so obvious. Example - the "mansion" where the load shark lives looks like anybody's back yard...

I honestly think the blonde actress who played the lead female character turned up thinking that she was auditioning for a blue movie - that surely is the only type of role that she would normally be cast in.

Avoid it, at all cost.

I was very disappointed. The movie was filled with poor acting and scripting, an especially wooden performance from the female lead Camden Brady. Far fetched plot and not mathematically probable, as any true card counter would agree. One additional error I noted was that the Blackjack table at the casino showed the dealer using six to eight decks of cards, with the premise of the whole movie and the card-counting algorithm based on the fact that the casino was still using only one deck of cards. The only saving grace was that I didn't have to pay to rent this movie, since Hollywood video went to all you rent for $15 per month last year. Oh, and yes, Camden was very easy on the eyes.

I was a bit nervous about this flick. Having just watched Crossbones, another low-budget no-name film, with the *bad* acting to match, I was hesitant to raise my expectations very high for, or even rent, Hit Me...But being a big Ocean's Eleven fan, I decided to give it a shot anyways. Fortunately, as luck may have it, this is a surprisingly entertaining movie with (generally) more than half-ways decent acting; in fact, the lady that plays Alicia is the only one I felt that delivered a slightly sub-par (but not terrible) performance. There are a few scenes that have very abrupt endings, with no music fades, and some so short that you're left wondering why they were even added, or why they didn't extend them a little bit. But beyond all this, the cinematography is pretty good, and the movie is very entertaining--especially considering that I got it as a $2 rental from the local convenience store. Therefore, I give it a 7/10, not because it's a great film, but because it's fun, entertaining and there's even a little gratuitous nudity. Plus you have to take into account the fact that you'd probably run up a higher bar tab on New Year's Eve than they spent on this movie...Rent it or even buy it if you can get it for $10 or less.

This was one terrible movie, start to finish. I think it was shot on a $500 camera that they could seem to keep still. The acting was ridiculous as was the screenplay. I would give this movie a 2 or 3 out of 10 but since a bunch of the film's buddies have obviously gone on and given it 10's I have to try to help the viewing public by averaging down. That's the trouble with IMDb, it is starting to lose its reliance.

As for this movie, save 2 hours of your life and watch something else, I wish I had. Thought I would give it a chance since it had a 6.6 rating and (fake) reasonable review.

Disappointed.