The Condemned (2007)
4/10
Skip daddily duh.
21 May 2007
Well that wasn't swell. When a director decides to have a wrestler as the main character, I assume that I will see situations where a huge man cracks, snackles and pops almost as huge or as evil men around him. Well, thats what we all want to see if we choose to watch this kind of film. Now if a director decides to hire cameramen who all seem to have one thing in common - epileptic seizures whenever there's action - then that director is condemned to a certain hell (quoting a known shepherd). And this is the Stone Cold Steve Austin-sized flaw in this particular film.

You Don't see the ACTION. Its all blur and fast cuts and shitty shitty bang bang. What is the sense of directing a action film if you can't see whats FRIGGIN happening'? Certainly the plot is something not to mention. Certainly the acting is average. So thats why the action-sequences should provide our minds with cool, ass-kicking violence and head smashing, skull crashing brawls. But nooooooo. Instead we get a vision of "cool fight-scenes" from a cameraman who likely has studied in the filming-school of blind, inbred orphan monkeys who didn't fit to write Shakespeare in a government secret project.

This movie should have provided action in the form of Stone Cold Steve Austin but it fails miserably because we can't figure the F out where he is hitting and who he is hitting and what damage it does because the FRIGGIN cameraman is having a seizure while filming ! So to make this simple : no story, no good acting, no huge special effects and yes, action. If you can call 46 cuts in a 60 second scene action.

A big disappointment
9 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed