Wow. When I rented this movie, I knew that it might be bad, but I never expected a train wreck like this. It's not so much that the script was boring, but the way the movie was executed was somewhat bizarre. People's behavior (the police's in particular) just didn't make much sense. I expected a certain level of quality given that the movie included Morgan Freeman, but I was unpleasantly surprised. His character wasn't particularly interesting or important. I have a suspicion that in the original script, Lieutenant Redding was a very minor character, but when they landed Morgan Freeman the Lieutenant was given more face time, though no more relevance. If you watch the trailer, it appears that the movie is centered on him. As it turns out, the plot and outcome of the movie would be the same if his character had never existed.
33 Reviews
What Was Morgan Freeman Thinking?
vio211219 July 2003
Ok, let me first get the pleasantries out of the way. Wait, I can't think of any pleasantries for this steaming pile of monkey crap. This is seriously one of the worst movies I have ever seen. If you rent or buy this movie thinking it's going to star Morgan Freeman, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Freeman appears in a total of three scenes with possibly 10 lines max. The film itself is more or less yet ANOTHER black urban "street" movie along the lines of classics like Boyz N da Hood and Menace II Society, however it's not even the same league as those movies. Hell, it's not even in the same sport. And if it's playing any sport, it's gotta be bowling. You've probably seen several movies like this sitting on your shelf at your local Blockbuster, but the difference between this one and those is that this one somehow has a major superstar of an actor in it(albiet only for 5 minutes or so...). But don't let that fool you into thinking this movie is even remotely decent, let alone good. It is some of the cheapest and most amateur crap I have ever laid my eyes upon. It honestly looks like it was made for about 10 bucks. The video quality is so amateur and hookey that at one point I actually spotted strange wiggly lines going down the middle of the frame. I mean, even the Blairwitch Project looked more professional and quality made than this. The acting is pretty much putrid from every actor involved. I didn't know what was really going on plot wise as the film was horribly edited and went all over the place(nor did i care anyway...), but I think it was basically about two young black men who start dealing drugs and ruin their lives in the process. Yep, real 'original' eh? I don't know the circumstances surrounding Morgan Freeman being involved in this, but the only thing I can assume is the director was given a substantially large chunk of chain by the studio and he basically spent it all paying Freeman to appear in a couple scenes. The best thing is whenever Morgan Freeman appears on the screen the director cues some big symphonic music and starts trying out really dramatic camera angles to try and trick you into thinking that you're suddenly watching a multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbuster, but the film reaks of so much suckiness that it doesn't even come close to being effective and you just end up laughing at the patheticness of it. I should also note that I did not and would not ever pay money to see this waste of celluoid. I work at a Blockbuster Video and thus get all my rentals free. I saw it in the employee rentals stack and thought to myself "Hmm, Morgan Freeman is a fine actor; I'll give this a shot." despite the fact that the movie had been sitting on the shelf since 2001(REALLY BAD SIGN) and it was a direct-to-DVD release. Boy, what a mistake that was. I should have known better. I think the only reason I even made it through this entire piece of crap is because it only ran 80 minutes. Also, please don't let the fact that a big picture of Morgan Freeman's face is plastered on the cover box to trick you into thinking he has a big role in this. It's false advertisement to utmost extreme! They even stick his face all over the main menu of the disc. I guess in one last ditch effort to try to convince you're about to watch a great urban street drama "starring" one of Hollywood's finest actors. I can only possibly recommend this film to people who like viewing cinematic engimas. That enigma of course being how a legitimate Hollywood heavyweight like Morgan Freeman ended up in this god forsaken pathetic excuse for a film. AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS! I PROMISE you will regret wasting 80 minutes of your life on this. It's that bad. The Shawshank Redemption this is not. Morgan Freeman should be ashamed of himself.
False publicity
Spotnick1 August 2003
When I saw the movie at the video club, I said it looks exactly like "Along came a spider" and "kiss the girls", it's with Morgan Freeman, it should be good.
Well, what a disappointment, this movie looks like a college project, nothing else.. very very bad filming, and not to help, one of the worst french translation I've ever heard..
It's total crap, I should have asked for my money back.
After the movie ended (yes, I watched it completely, I said Morgan Freeman would do something somewhere, in vain), I checked the DVD extra and watched the trailer, oh my god, the trailer shows ALL scenes with Morgan Freeman.. looks like he's the main actor of the movie!!!
False publicity, plus this attrocity last only 70 mins...
Well, what a disappointment, this movie looks like a college project, nothing else.. very very bad filming, and not to help, one of the worst french translation I've ever heard..
It's total crap, I should have asked for my money back.
After the movie ended (yes, I watched it completely, I said Morgan Freeman would do something somewhere, in vain), I checked the DVD extra and watched the trailer, oh my god, the trailer shows ALL scenes with Morgan Freeman.. looks like he's the main actor of the movie!!!
False publicity, plus this attrocity last only 70 mins...
A movie with an important message, but bombs.
MJohnsontalker23 November 2003
This movie has an awesome plot, and a very important message behind it. The problem is, due to the most annoying and bad acting I have seen recently, this movie bombs.
Even Morgan Freeman can not save this one. He is seen for maybe a total of ten minutes during the entire film. His role is to say the least, meaningless.
The thing is, if you can suffer through the bad acting and the slow pace that this movie goes at. It does have an important message about what gangs, drugs, and violence lead to.
I do not recommend this movie.
Even Morgan Freeman can not save this one. He is seen for maybe a total of ten minutes during the entire film. His role is to say the least, meaningless.
The thing is, if you can suffer through the bad acting and the slow pace that this movie goes at. It does have an important message about what gangs, drugs, and violence lead to.
I do not recommend this movie.
Don't believe everything you see
benjamen-douglas4 March 2005
This makes you wonder if someone "stole" Morgan Freeman. I suspect he was abducted and used without his permission! His work is always so much better than this. The movie was poorly written. It was poorly made, and poorly directed. This movie contains almost no real footage with Morgan Freeman in it. No one should rent or buy this movie based on his "presence" in the film. As an avid supporter of Morgan Freeman, I honestly believe that there is something afoot here. It's as if it was sold to him as one project and then post-production became something totally different. I wonder why he didn't fight this. It's pure crap.
I wish there was a zero
shempsstuntdbl12 September 2004
We rented this movie for one reason: Morgan Freeman. Unfortunately, Morgan Freeman's largest part in this movie is on the DVD box. I like Morgan Freeman, but this whole movie, and especially his supposed part in it, is a fraud. I HATE gang-banger gibberish and subliterate street jargon, and that's all this movie is. Whatever hidden cautionary tale this movie is supposed to convey is buried under cubic yards of blithering idiocy. If you want to see what is in this movie without paying for it, just go over to the bad side of what ever city you live in and you'll see plenty of it. Whatever you do, don't waste your time or money on this movie if you are wanting to see Morgan Freeman--he just isn't there. Rating: a big goose egg -- 0. There's not one redeeming quality to this movie, not even the big name "associated" with it.
False marketing
flodanilsson31 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
You might think that Morgan Freeman, one of the better actors there is, should be a bit more selective when choosing scripts. This script uses his name and face just to get sold. He has like 15 minutes in the whole movie and not counting the first two lines of speech in the movie, I think it took around 60 minutes before he opened his mouth.
This is pure and simple fraud taking in count that Morgan Freemans name and face is dominating the case on the DVD.
The movie in it self is, in my opinion also bad, bad acting, bad camera, since I personally don't like rap - bad music and really bad sound! On the DVD, you have one feature, scene access, on the Swedish version of the DVD you weren't even able to change language on subtitles even though there was a place on the menu for this!
I read an interesting comment on it on a Swedish film site, this should be sold as a music video for the one and only (I think) rap artist that plays in the soundtrack.
My advise to you all, avoid this film as long as possible!
For all the two people in the world who might like this movie, don't despair, everyone can't have good taste.
This is pure and simple fraud taking in count that Morgan Freemans name and face is dominating the case on the DVD.
The movie in it self is, in my opinion also bad, bad acting, bad camera, since I personally don't like rap - bad music and really bad sound! On the DVD, you have one feature, scene access, on the Swedish version of the DVD you weren't even able to change language on subtitles even though there was a place on the menu for this!
I read an interesting comment on it on a Swedish film site, this should be sold as a music video for the one and only (I think) rap artist that plays in the soundtrack.
My advise to you all, avoid this film as long as possible!
For all the two people in the world who might like this movie, don't despair, everyone can't have good taste.
What a Crap, Mr. Morgan Freeman!
claudio_carvalho19 May 2005
The thief Drama is on probation, afraid to come back to jail, but he is convinced by a "brother" to become a drug-dealer to improve his way of life. He makes lots of money dealing drugs, but his career ends in a tragic way, affecting innocent lives in his poor community. "Guilty by Association" has a good premise and even intention, but its direction and the performances of the amateurish cast are simply horrible. It is impossible to feel sympathy for any character, including the policemen and the detectives, who have very weird behaviors. Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors and based on his name on the cover of the VHS, and not believing in IMDb User Rating, I decided to watch this film on video. Unfortunately, his participation in this movie is to give his name to the credits only, and attract viewers like me. Shame on you, Mr. Morgan Freeman, for such a crap in your recent filmography. Your fans do not deserve to be so disappointed with you. My vote is three.
Title (Brazil): "Vítimas Inocentes" ("Innocent Victims")
Title (Brazil): "Vítimas Inocentes" ("Innocent Victims")
Another Extremely Disappointed Viewer
Stevo-1124 August 2004
Okay, so I'm walking through Family Video looking for a movie and I see a Morgan Freeman movie! I'm a fan of his... I think I'll check it out. Mr Freeman has a total of about 20 lines in this movie, in his 10 minutes on screen at the end. I guess if you like gang-related movies and don't mind a reeeeeeeeeeeally slow moving movie, you might sit through the whole thing. Unfortunately, I can comprehend dialog a little faster than this movie drips it. Overall, the acting is very poor, the pace super slow, camera work looks like amateur, and the lack of Morgan in an advertised Morgan Freeman movie is incredible. If you bought this movie, you should give credit to the advertising agency that took your cash.
Interesting New Talent, but that's all that was good
TimeForLime23 July 2003
Indeed this WAS bad. I felt it was two films. The inside film was a poorly scripted, poorly directed, very poorly shot crime-doesn't-pay film that ran about 67 minutes after whatever was mercifully cut out. Many scenes in the first half seemed to be shot in some "zoom" mode which was distracting and irritating. The characters were too much in your face. You wanted the camera to back up about four to six feet.
Then someone added some post production footage with Morgan Freeman that appeared to turn the film into a whiney pseudo-documentary about gang violence. The resulting combination was the second film.
The documentary talked about murder -- every 34 minutes. The death rate among young American males -- the highest in the world. (Baloney: try living in Liberia or The Congo or Rwanda.) And the prevalence of gangs, especially in Washington, D.C.
The shameful part was that THE PROTAGONISTS IN THIS FILM WEREN'T GANG MEMBERS. They were just drug dealers. So apparently the film-doctors that were sent to rescue this film did all their work by phone and email AND NEVER EVEN SAW THE INNER CORE FILM.
How bad is that?
Using the NetFlix 5 star scale, I have this film a "2", and then down-graded it to a "1" because of the confusion of format and film identity. This translated into about a "3" on the IMDb 10 point scale.
Why a "3"? Because there are worse films than this. The audience is introduced to two or three interesting young African-American actors. They were new to me, but maybe others would recognize them. Some of the slightly older ones could be rappers: I don't know. But seeing new faces was a treat. And the girlfriend wasn't too bad, although her lines were confining.
So a low "3". But as the other reviewer advised, so do I: STAY AWAY!
Then someone added some post production footage with Morgan Freeman that appeared to turn the film into a whiney pseudo-documentary about gang violence. The resulting combination was the second film.
The documentary talked about murder -- every 34 minutes. The death rate among young American males -- the highest in the world. (Baloney: try living in Liberia or The Congo or Rwanda.) And the prevalence of gangs, especially in Washington, D.C.
The shameful part was that THE PROTAGONISTS IN THIS FILM WEREN'T GANG MEMBERS. They were just drug dealers. So apparently the film-doctors that were sent to rescue this film did all their work by phone and email AND NEVER EVEN SAW THE INNER CORE FILM.
How bad is that?
Using the NetFlix 5 star scale, I have this film a "2", and then down-graded it to a "1" because of the confusion of format and film identity. This translated into about a "3" on the IMDb 10 point scale.
Why a "3"? Because there are worse films than this. The audience is introduced to two or three interesting young African-American actors. They were new to me, but maybe others would recognize them. Some of the slightly older ones could be rappers: I don't know. But seeing new faces was a treat. And the girlfriend wasn't too bad, although her lines were confining.
So a low "3". But as the other reviewer advised, so do I: STAY AWAY!
Horrible!! Obviously Morgan Did a HUGE Favor for this Movie! :o
midnitepantera13 September 2021
Got this years ago because Morgan was in it. I Love Morgan Freeman, but that picture on the cover is the Most you will see of him. LOL This movie is awful in EVERY WAY! So he must have been helping out whomever made this movie by letting them Use his Face, Name and Fame. Don't waste your time. Go Watch a REaL Movie with Morgan Freeman Actually In iT!! :(
A good movie with an important message... Definitely worth your time.
rasmusld1 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The film portrays the life (and death) of a few young afro-Americans living in Washington DC. It shows how two young men start selling drugs to make a living, even though one of them (in the beginning) is rather reluctant, his friend persuades him to get in on it. At first all is well, they're making lots of money and nobody bothers them. But it doesn't last, at some point it just starts going wrong. The two drug dealers both wants to get out. But once you're in it's hard to let go. And things just get more and more out of control. An excellent film all in all, as it makes a really important point as to why crime doesn't pay, why revenging a person by killing the murderer is incredibly wrong (which also, indirectly, takes a swing, and hits spot on, at the death sentence.
And if after you've seen the film, you sit down and take a moment to think about it, the title couldn't be more perfect.
And if after you've seen the film, you sit down and take a moment to think about it, the title couldn't be more perfect.
Eminently watchable through these eyes
MonstrousWalker8 March 2005
I entered this viewing experience well-prepared from reading all the other reviews, and was actually looking forward to seeing one of the worst movies of all-time, curious what a disaster looks like. I didn't feel bamboozled for the lack of Morgan Freeman face time considering the prominence of his face on the cover, or for the disconnect between how the film's story line was promoted and what it actually consisted (if it was about anything or necessarily tried to be). I also got to watch it for free. Some would like to praise the advertisers for suckering them into watching an awful movie; I think the packaging is the worst part of a film that is much better without the baggage of false expectations. In fact, leave your baggage at the door, every preconceived notion about what a film should be, and you just might emerge 80 minutes later without feeling that you'd wasted your time.
"Guilty by Association" is a good film if you can let the imagery wash over you without concern for connecting the dots. It has a pornographic baseline worthy of an R-rating for the casualness and meaninglessness of it sex and violence (the lack of blood actually adds to this effect) which will please those who regard these as an inherent good irrespective of other factors. There is odd (yet interesting) placement of comedy or comedic intent in a film that appears to be played straight about 98% of the time. Because of this it remains in doubt whether the 98% is as straight as it appears, or if the apparent bad dramatic acting is rather a case of comedic overplaying sneaking in where one would think that it doesn't belong. I thought the disjointed mind that created this film was an interesting one to visit.
"Guilty by Association" is a good film if you can let the imagery wash over you without concern for connecting the dots. It has a pornographic baseline worthy of an R-rating for the casualness and meaninglessness of it sex and violence (the lack of blood actually adds to this effect) which will please those who regard these as an inherent good irrespective of other factors. There is odd (yet interesting) placement of comedy or comedic intent in a film that appears to be played straight about 98% of the time. Because of this it remains in doubt whether the 98% is as straight as it appears, or if the apparent bad dramatic acting is rather a case of comedic overplaying sneaking in where one would think that it doesn't belong. I thought the disjointed mind that created this film was an interesting one to visit.
Appalling movie at best.
stoneage5715 December 2003
I only rented the movie because Morgan Freeman was in it and it turns out he wasn't really in it at all. He should be ashamed to associate his name with this trashy effort - I can't even call it a movie. It is a shame I can no longer associate Morgan Freeman with quality films without first checking reviews. Thanks for the opportunity to trash this stinker.
The doggie style scenes did it for my grown up daughter. It was the final straw in an already straw ridden catastrophe.
The doggie style scenes did it for my grown up daughter. It was the final straw in an already straw ridden catastrophe.
Misrepresentation by any other name...
emundo-14 May 2004
Guilty by Association is a case study in misrepresentation. The trailer that was included in the DVD extras gives the impression that the movie will be an taut urban action thriller with Morgan Freeman chasing down a child killer. Instead, we get a preachy second rate faux-docudrama about a drug partnership gone bad.
The trailer was far superior to the movie. The trailer has tension, action, and pacing. Perhaps the trailer editor is the one who should have made Guilty by Association. The movie is at times laughably amateurish and often downright insulting to the viewer's intelligence.
The stupidest scene (among others) is where a cop calls the murdered child's mother to tell her that her kid has been murdered. Excuse me? Anyone with enough brains to hit the "off" button on the remote knows that this is a sensitive situation that would be handled in person by the cop.
All that can be concluded from this poor effort is that Morgan Freeman must have owed someone a BIG favor. That's the only explanation for his being Guilty by Association with this movie.
The trailer was far superior to the movie. The trailer has tension, action, and pacing. Perhaps the trailer editor is the one who should have made Guilty by Association. The movie is at times laughably amateurish and often downright insulting to the viewer's intelligence.
The stupidest scene (among others) is where a cop calls the murdered child's mother to tell her that her kid has been murdered. Excuse me? Anyone with enough brains to hit the "off" button on the remote knows that this is a sensitive situation that would be handled in person by the cop.
All that can be concluded from this poor effort is that Morgan Freeman must have owed someone a BIG favor. That's the only explanation for his being Guilty by Association with this movie.
Not what it claims to be
windsapp4 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I believe that the description on the cover is very misleading. You would assume from the description that Morgan Freeman is investigating a murder & he solves it, when in fact it is soled for him when the murderer turns himself in.
I believe Morgan Freeman is in the movie for a total of less then 10 minutes. Very bad movie & even worse representation of the facts on the cover.
I believe that the information on the disc cover is not correct & you are lead to believe it is about a time when gangs get out of control & there is a inner gang war, this is not true it is a story about a young man just off parole & he is talked into a life of crime from an old friend & the friendship turns sore & he & his friend end up dead.
Not at all as the cover says.
I believe Morgan Freeman is in the movie for a total of less then 10 minutes. Very bad movie & even worse representation of the facts on the cover.
I believe that the information on the disc cover is not correct & you are lead to believe it is about a time when gangs get out of control & there is a inner gang war, this is not true it is a story about a young man just off parole & he is talked into a life of crime from an old friend & the friendship turns sore & he & his friend end up dead.
Not at all as the cover says.
Was Morgan THAT desperate for the money?
cands_smith28 July 2005
This movie was badly shot, the sound was awful and the acting left little to be desired. It was your typical clichéd run-of-the mill gangster film, trying to be sentimental. Do not rent this movie, there is a reason it went straight to video! I watched the film because my boyfriend had chosen it, he then decided to fall asleep next to me and forced me to torment myself by watching the movie until the end. The cast is unknown, the director was probably doing a favour for someone's uncle's cousin's kid. That or he was desperate for the cash. I'm all for supporting up-and-coming young Hollywood hot shots but this was abysmal. Morgan chose to let his name be associated with this movie, that makes him guilty of forcing us viewers to watch a really bad film!!!! How many times can Morgan Freeman play the good cop facing troubled times? Enough already!
Why are films like this made?
plain_jane_jones23 June 2004
"Sometimes first instincts are wrong"
I walked into a Blockbuster with my mom & we saw Morgan Freeman's face taking up most of the cover of this one. I believed that the rule of movie covers is that actors with more than 5 minutes of on screen time have their pictures placed on the cover. I think about that twice now when I rent a movie. My mom loves Morgan & I thought he was awesome in "The Shawshank Redemption" & "Bruce Almighty" but I was a little skeptical about this one. Straight to video movies are tricky that way. To this day I have no idea what the point to this movie was or why Morgan Freeman even bothered being in the biggest waste of celluloid since "Manos: The Hands of Fate". Perhaps he did it as a favor. Basically all he does is put his head against a doll he's holding & fail to convince a guy to come out of his apartment. I wonder how much they paid him to do that? I could do that. There was violence in this "film" but no blood. How can that be explained? A little girl was sitting at the top of a slide, got shot, & slid down the slide dead. There was no bullet hole & there was no blood streaked down the slide. A guy was stabbed in prison, & there was no blood on whatever it was that stabbed him (can't remember) & no blood on his orange jumper. Another guy shot himself in the head. No blood & his funeral was open casket. 1st of all, I thought that when someone gets shot in the head, they can't have an open casket funeral. I might be wrong but that would be gross. 2nd of all, if they decided to sew that area shut (which wouldn't make a bit of sense but then again this movie didn't make sense) his face still would've been a mangled mess. The complete absence of blood in a movie rated "R" for violence & other stuff wasn't even the worst of it. The dialogue was horrible & I couldn't even understand what was being said most of the time. It could've been the crappy sound or the actors mumbling through their lines. If you want to be a filmmaker or an actor, take a look at this & "Manos" to see how a movie shouldn't be done. 0/10
I walked into a Blockbuster with my mom & we saw Morgan Freeman's face taking up most of the cover of this one. I believed that the rule of movie covers is that actors with more than 5 minutes of on screen time have their pictures placed on the cover. I think about that twice now when I rent a movie. My mom loves Morgan & I thought he was awesome in "The Shawshank Redemption" & "Bruce Almighty" but I was a little skeptical about this one. Straight to video movies are tricky that way. To this day I have no idea what the point to this movie was or why Morgan Freeman even bothered being in the biggest waste of celluloid since "Manos: The Hands of Fate". Perhaps he did it as a favor. Basically all he does is put his head against a doll he's holding & fail to convince a guy to come out of his apartment. I wonder how much they paid him to do that? I could do that. There was violence in this "film" but no blood. How can that be explained? A little girl was sitting at the top of a slide, got shot, & slid down the slide dead. There was no bullet hole & there was no blood streaked down the slide. A guy was stabbed in prison, & there was no blood on whatever it was that stabbed him (can't remember) & no blood on his orange jumper. Another guy shot himself in the head. No blood & his funeral was open casket. 1st of all, I thought that when someone gets shot in the head, they can't have an open casket funeral. I might be wrong but that would be gross. 2nd of all, if they decided to sew that area shut (which wouldn't make a bit of sense but then again this movie didn't make sense) his face still would've been a mangled mess. The complete absence of blood in a movie rated "R" for violence & other stuff wasn't even the worst of it. The dialogue was horrible & I couldn't even understand what was being said most of the time. It could've been the crappy sound or the actors mumbling through their lines. If you want to be a filmmaker or an actor, take a look at this & "Manos" to see how a movie shouldn't be done. 0/10
Nothing special
blumdeluxe26 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
"Guilty by Association" tells the story of a murder and the circumstances in a bad neighborhood that ultimately led to it.
The movie is pretty much your typical slightly below-average thriller. A lot of supposedly "cool" shots, the spell of big names and a somewhat critical undertone towards society. While I didn't find it as bad as many others here, it sure doesn't reach the level of better films of this genre and thus ultimately delivers few arguments to watch it.
All in all you can give it a try if you don't expect more than a short distraction. For everything else, you'll find better titles.
The movie is pretty much your typical slightly below-average thriller. A lot of supposedly "cool" shots, the spell of big names and a somewhat critical undertone towards society. While I didn't find it as bad as many others here, it sure doesn't reach the level of better films of this genre and thus ultimately delivers few arguments to watch it.
All in all you can give it a try if you don't expect more than a short distraction. For everything else, you'll find better titles.
Truly awful film
ladyaurora8 November 2003
If you can call it that. We rented this film from our television company because of Morgan Freeman. Should have realised something was wrong when there was no preview for the film. However, we thought, Morgan Freeman, great actor. The only thing he's been in recently that stank was DreamCatcher. Pretty safe bet. We sat through over 20 mins of this piece of drivel before we couldn't take it anymore. My step-son was being punished, no TV or movies. Even he was eager to go back to his punishment after that 20 mins. That's gotta say something.
Not even a film
petra-5920 April 2006
I borrowed this movie because, according to the DVD cover, it starred Morgan Freeman. It didn't. He seems to have been included from some discarded moments from other films. I suspect he is ashamed that his name even appeared on the cast list. Some films go to the cinema. Some go directly to DVD. This should have gone straight to the dustbin. And who makes movies in the old 4 x 3 format anyway? Since all the "actors" mumbled, the lack of subtitles was at first annoying. But as soon as I realised that nobody was really saying anything, I decided it didn't matter. The film lasts 80 minutes, of which the last 10 (yes that's right 10 minutes) is given over to credit titles. That many people to make this garbage! On second thoughts the movie could have been improved if it had lasted 10 minutes with 70 minutes of credits.
Morgan Freeman Fans Take a Pass
Devans0027 September 2003
I picked this movie up at the video store because of Morgan's prominant picture on the cover. If he was in this movie more than 5 minutes total, I'll eat my dog's dog food. What a disappointment. I'm willing to sit through sub-par acting to watch Morgan Freeman flare across the screen like a shooting star, but he didn't get enough time to do anything.
Too thin, but not that bad
dromasca31 January 2004
I was amazed by the negative comments and votes this film got from other IMDB viewers.. It may be an issue with the expectations raised by trailers or advertising in the US, I do not know. Having rented the movie on DVD, I was not disappointed by seeing it, and will not ask for the money or time back. The only minus of this film is the thinness - too short (80 minutes) for an usual length movie. However, the format of pseudo-docu-drama fits the time, and fits the subject of violence in the US cities, and among the young generation and hopeless life of certain Afro-American social categories. The film is also in line with the rap-style art, quite hot among the young ones nowadays. I liked the movie, and despite the fact that I would have liked Morgan Freeman to have a more consistent role, I do not think that he needs to be ashamed to have his name associated with this film. 7 out of 10 on my personal scale.
This director must have peed his pants at nabbing Morgan Freeman, which explains the smell of this movie.
immutablyme7 April 2005
I was confused from the start of this film. I couldn't understand how Morgan Freeman's face and name were associated with what I was seeing. The film quality, acting, lighting, sound, and every other aspect of this movie were so bad that I started thinking of how high-quality The Blair Witch was. In fact, S.W.A.T even started looking Oscar worthy.
Speaking of Oscar, I'm hoping that because of Morgan Freeman's recent Academy Award success that he'll never have to be associated with a film like this again. It was embarrassing. Of course, the moment he appears on scene he commands your attention. Sadly, it was like watching Sir Anthony Hopkins acting in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I respect that every director has to have a start somewhere but a movie of this caliber DOES NOT deserve an actor as talented as Freeman. It was horribly apparent that the film's budget could not afford his salary, either. He's in the film for a few minutes and his entire dialog is shorter than the ingredients on a box of salt.
One has to wonder about the back story of the casting on this one. I wonder if Mr. Freeman's agent is still employed.
Speaking of Oscar, I'm hoping that because of Morgan Freeman's recent Academy Award success that he'll never have to be associated with a film like this again. It was embarrassing. Of course, the moment he appears on scene he commands your attention. Sadly, it was like watching Sir Anthony Hopkins acting in an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
I respect that every director has to have a start somewhere but a movie of this caliber DOES NOT deserve an actor as talented as Freeman. It was horribly apparent that the film's budget could not afford his salary, either. He's in the film for a few minutes and his entire dialog is shorter than the ingredients on a box of salt.
One has to wonder about the back story of the casting on this one. I wonder if Mr. Freeman's agent is still employed.
Pathetic....
cmohan16 June 2004
I rented this movie only because of Morgan Freeman.
Having seen movies like Outbreak and Se7en, this is totally disgusting.
Are they talking about Gangs? Drugs?...Nothing...
Morgan freeman should think before lending his name to these kind of films though he comes only in 4, 5 scenes.
I had to fast forward (X16) for most of the scenes.
There is also a utterly indecent bed scenes and a cabaret which most of us would feel disgusting.
I would rate a 1/10 for this movie.
.
Having seen movies like Outbreak and Se7en, this is totally disgusting.
Are they talking about Gangs? Drugs?...Nothing...
Morgan freeman should think before lending his name to these kind of films though he comes only in 4, 5 scenes.
I had to fast forward (X16) for most of the scenes.
There is also a utterly indecent bed scenes and a cabaret which most of us would feel disgusting.
I would rate a 1/10 for this movie.
.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
