Sadly Over-hyped

Highly Overrated But Still Good

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Whoa, this is a hard movie to review. It is filled with action, odd characters, and quite a bit of realistic and gruesome violence. Most guys are going to be drawn in right in at the beginning when confronted with an entire roomful of unbelievably beautiful, totally nude, Eastern European prostitutes. The visuals of all kinds never really let up in this movie, especially since it was filmed in interesting areas of Europe. The lead female assassin (incidentally, a much older and more matronly woman than the eye candy on the cover) is downright terrifying (one could even say castrating with respect to men) in her utter ruthlessness and efficiency. Take the warning seriously about there being some pretty graphic violence in this film, because I'm not ridiculously squeamish, yet I found myself pretty shocked. Most of the action actually seems fairly realistic, at least until the very end, at which point the filmmakers, as is common, get carried away with some physically unlikely or downright impossible stuff. My attention never flagged during this movie, since it struck me as being so far out of left field that I wasn't sure what to make of it. If this kind of film experience became more common, I'm sure that I wouldn't rate this as highly, but it's current uniqueness, at least for me personally, gets it full marks.

Anthony has done his best to distance himself from his family. He even moved out of the U.S. and opened a restaurant on another continent. Business wound up kind of sucking and when his best friend finds him and gives him the idea to start a detective agency he folds. Their first case, though, takes them further into danger than they ever expected.I hate the word "derivative." In fact, the only time you'll ever see it used in one of my reviews is when I'm making fun of it. Why? Well, when a critic uses the word to describe a movie, they're basically just saying that the film was imitating another one. In a lot of cases, I find that it's less imitation and more inspiration. I mean, directors grow up watching movies and honed their styles in the memory of their favorites, right? So almost every one of them has been inspired by something someone else made. If a critic simply means the movie is cookie cutter or unimaginative – then they should just say that. I feel like it's just a word those people use to sound more elitist.Cat Run was not well liked by critics. I think the lot of them were watching the wrong movie or something, because I thought the film was hilarious. There's a lot of sex and nudity, but considering the main plot it makes sense for there to be a lot of sexuality. There was also the buddy- detective aspect because of the two main characters. Most of Cat Run actually seemed like an episode of Psyche with different actors. It did have some relatively original parts, though, and I thought the characters came alive through the actors. There were some plot holes. The only one that I can mention without adding a spoiler alert, however, is that it's never explained why Anthony has such superior observation skills (his skills are revealed roughly 10 minutes into the movie). I would have liked to know the story behind it.

Despite always feeling that an IMDb rating over 6 is a worthy movie, this one is on the verge of a lower rating.It is hard to put your finger on the exact reason this movie is so silly, others have said the plot is weak (I suggest haphazard is a better word), certainly the acting is mediocre, the humour was there but lame at times, the two "buddies" are just too goofy to take serious as private eye's, but the handicapped African-Scottish assistant (D.L. Hughley) may have been the silliest. A final criticism is that some of the scenes made no sense, no wonder this didn't get an Oscar for editing.But, and I always at least try to give some positive comments, it was relatively entertaining and worth a watch on a stormy Sunday afternoon in February if you have nothing else to do. Lets be honest (guys), Paz is enjoyable to see in action and the two assassins were "interesting" (Janet McTeer) and oddly funny (Tony Curran).

This is proof that money, gorgeous women, solid acting and beautiful locales cannot overcome a silly, unbelievable story.The story starts out as a buddy movie with 2 goofy American guys starting a business in Europe. Then, they cross paths with the gorgeous Cat and all hell breaks loose. The focus of the story then changes to another 'bad American govt official in cahoots with ruthless Eastern European arms dealers". And then it gets REALLY silly. And not fun silly. They tried to throw in a few jokes but it is just a muddled mess.The Un-believability factor is ridiculously high. You'd think that Europeans hear gun shots all of the time and do nothing about it.But, if there is a reason to see this movie it is Janet McTeer who steals every scene she is in, doing a better impression of Helen Mirren than even Helen Mirren can do. She is cold, ruthless, efficient and believable, to a certain extent.It started out as a Guy Ritchie type movie, devolves into overblown James Bond type silliness and then the bodies start stacking up like cord wood.The 2 lowest points are the African American guy doing a Scottish Accent and then later, getting everyone out of a jam by picking up his kilt. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb.The 2 main guys are very likable but under used, Paz Vega started out as the star but then acts as scenery, not even DL Hughley can save it in the 90 seconds of screen time he gets.This could have been a good movie. They spent a lot of money making it. They should have spent more time writing it. This movie is under cooked.Watch it with low expectations. And enjoy the eye candy. That's it.