Poorly acted, written and produced

Your right about this movie. The acting is poor. The lead actor is that wooden it's unbelievable. And then in pops Vinnie Jones, can't act and couldn't play football. Also the fire effects after explosions are a joke. They look worse than a PS1 game. Yeah it's a 5/10, probably could have been a decent film with a better lead and without that tw£t Vinnie Jones!

I am not that familiar with Ray Stevenson's work. At first I thought his acting was poor...that introductory scene standing next to his bombed car. He grew on me later in the film but not enough to make me ask why they couldn't have had someown else play the role---maybe because of his strong physical resemblance to the real Danny G?

The story for me kept me going. I am from NE Ohio and never knew the depth of mob influence there just 20 miles from where I grew up. I was overseas in the service when all of that went down, so I missed reading it in the Plain Dealer.

Fascinating story. Ordered the book and film for a friend whose should be familiar with those names and activities.

You have absolutely no idea what you talking about.

This is a great movie showing how times were and how Green was.

It's a wonderfuly done movie.

Go watch Fast Five or Avatar.

Hmmm . . . well, I didn't think it was poorly acted--I thought just the opposite actually, poorly written (ditto), or poorly "produced".

I thought the special effects were good, not lame.

It didn't seem low budget to me (and for that one, I'm not sure how it could to you, either, unless you've not seen many of those shot-on-a-camcorder flicks that were literally made for a few thousand dollars with a bunch of amateurs, including the director's personal friends, etc.--for example, check out a few films like A Cold Day in Hell (2011), Back Woods (2001) or Insaniac (2002)).

So I don't know what to tell you that you might have been missing. You must just have completely different aesthetic reactions than I do.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

I agree OP. I bought the blu ray last nite because of the lineup and I was extremely disappointed.
I need to stop checking IMDB ratings before I buy/watch movies lol.

Bad produced maybe but overall a great story told excellently. This tops most of the drivel pumped out by Hollywood this year.

Also considering this is your only post, do you not want us to see other movies you like?!? I'm guessing this film isn't up the standards of The Expendibles for you?

by - Bigchingan on Sat May 14 2011 20:38:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe this film's rating. This movie comes off like a film student's attempt at recreating a mobster movie with no budget. Am I missing something that makes this film a miracle? Good actors, poor acting. The writing is lame, the special effects are horrible, and everything else about it screams "low budget"

````````````````````````````````````````

Yea, this movie just came off as cheesy. I probably wouldn't have used Ray Stevenson as Danny Greene either. He just didn't do it for me. Not a leading man.

I'd grade this movie overall about a C or C+, probably because i'm from the area (Euclid) and even though most of it took place before my time, as they say, i found the subject matter interesting.

I came here to say the same thing, not because I'm a trolling hater, but because it's true. It reminded me of another movie (Hoffa) with what should have been a stellar cast (Jack?? C'mon!)and a topic/setting that gave plenty of room for quality drama, but somehow seemed forced, too try-hard, and - yeah - amateurish. I didn't totally hate it, but one watch was enough for me.



2 out of 5 stars.