dongillette

Honest, I've never seen a film this bad, this stupid, this poorly acted, badly scripted, or quite as goofy. I understand "camp" as well as the next guy, but this was just bad. Nothing campy about it, nothing funny about it, and nothing about it even whispers "cult classic.": When I came on here to read the reviews, I expected a series of 1's and I got a real shock seeing it was a 5.3. I don't understand why. The cheesy special (not so special) effects, the weird accents of the "American" cops (one's Russian, the other Australian) and the rest just made for an unbelieveable attempt at film-making. I'm ashamed that I watched the whole thing.

Some pretty cheesy acting and some really unbelievable fight scenes between the woman in the apartment and her would-be attacker. In addition, the little kid was MOST obnoxious. I wanted to put him over my knee every time he was on the screen barking orders and disobeying the mother.

The father's disbelief in the mother's claims of harrassment were stupid--no husband would just laugh off harrassment like this.

Also, the police's offering zero help to her when she went to them was off-the-charts in the unbelievable realm.

So yeah, it was stupid and yeah, it was ridiculous, but it had a couple of scary scenes that made me finish it.

A bit of a flop for me.

None of the characters seemed likeable, there was too much "accidental and forced" relationship drama that interrupted the storyline (which wasn't all that great to begin with), and there was no reason behind some of the character attributes. You'll see Samuel L. Jackson's character drinking constantly from scene one, so it's not a spoiler, but what does it add to the plot?

And speaking of Jackson, here's a good double standard for you: The retirement age for ANY Chicago cop is 63 and yet Samuel L. Jackson is 75. But somehow Leonardo DiCaprio caught hell for being too old for his role in "Killers of the Flower Moon." Now, I love both these guys--but Jackson gets a free pass because???