The Big Bang (2010) User Reviews

Conflicted.

[krachtm · 6/10 · 18 January 2011]

I'm not quite sure how to rate this movie. It's very well made, with excellent (if somewhat typecast) acting from all involved. The direction shows a real sense of style, making bold use of color, hue, saturation, surreal environments, and dream-like sequences... yet all of these seem directly lifted from a David Lynch movie. Indeed, the director has even produced a Lynch movie (Mulholland Drive). The dreamy yet rocking score from Johnny Marr really gives life to the movie, yet constantly sounds like lost tracks from Achtung Baby, the U2 album. And then there's the story. I love the story, but I loved it even better when it was a Wim Wenders movie called Until the End of the World.

This movie is pure plagiarism, right down to the soundtrack (Johnny Marr, what happened?!), but it's excellently made. As an unauthorized and uncredited American remake of Wim Wenders' awesome 1991 movie, there's both a lot to love and a lot to hate.

Someone should be facing a lengthy legal battle right now, and it's a shame, because this movie is so well done. Maybe next time the director will find his own vision, instead of plagiarizing his idols.

Fizzles Out

[debashishdas9 · 6/10 · 26 March 2011]

I watched this movie for two reasons, first, I like the TV Series "The Big Bang Theory", and second, I enjoy watching most Antonio Banderas movies. Aside from this I had no clue what to expect.

The movie starts out well enough and for about the first 40 minutes or so weaves a mildly interesting plot. After a certain point the movie takes a few confusing turns where the viewer is wondering how the new direction is going to align with the plot that was woven earlier. The climax, where the plot is revealed, is surprisingly good. Though, the ending, where the two separate paths the movie had taken are brought together is, in my opinion, quite lame.

The acting is good enough. Antonio Banderas and William Fichtner are good actors and they do a decent job. The rest of the cast doesn't fail either. In the end, it is the script which is a let down. Maybe it seemed great on paper and lost its charm when brought alive on the screen.

One more thing. The script somehow brings nuclear physics into play. Why or to what end is the question the viewer is likely to ask after the movie ends. When an element as strong as science, mathematics or religion has to be brought in, I believe, making it central to the plot would pay off better dividends. For example, "Pi" by Darren Aronofsky or "Back to the Future" movies.

Overall, it is an average thriller with bits of science thrown in. It is not exactly a waste of time, if you happen to catch it on TV. Otherwise, I wouldn't go out of my way to buy or rent a DVD. You aren't missing anything.

Not really

[borbatr-1 · 5/10 · 18 November 2017]

Put up the first five minutes from this movie and then put up 'murder my sweet' on and glimpse the originality. That's actually positive, getting good references. Not a good casting, good actors in wrong roles, and unnecessary lame special effects. I get it, got to keep yours eyes on screen, but that ending scene was too much. The rest of the effects, lightning, filters, psychedroad movie scenes were OK, but not really his style, Not really, but OK, though.

From the mind of a Meth-Addict??

[bmrao1980 · 3/10 · 19 January 2011]

Ever seen someone who is high on Meth? Or any other drug? Or Alcohol? Even Beer? At some point of time, when enough of it is pumping though one's system, one starts to rant. His imaginations start taking the shape of visions and they are so psychedelic! Watching this movie gave me the impression that the director decided to go on some sort of drug during the whole course of the movie.

There was enough to keep me hooked till the end but not enough to make it unforgettable or to qualify for repeat viewing. The ending did not impress.

The actors are good and the acting is also passable for the most part, but the editing is choppy at best. The makers might have a vision, but they didn't bother about the story. The whole rant about the various elements of astrophysics by almost all the key characters also did not help. It seemed inserted just to kill time and give the title a meaning. The so-called philosophy as well as metaphors fell flat. The dialog was ridiculous at best. And most of the key characters spoke with such thick accents or just plain weird that i gave up trying to understand them after a while. All this was a vague attempt to mask a very simplistic and predictable plot.

Overall, the movie gave me the impression of a very well made film school project from a guy on mind-altering drugs.

Stylistic and groovy, but not quite dynamite.

[MLachey · 7/10 · 20 May 2011]

If you're a fan of the detective genre, this movie is worth a watch.

The use of lighting and color throughout the film was a huge boon as it really drew you further into the mystery and storyline. The script was clever, maybe trying to be a bit too clever in linking metaphors and accurate(?) science.

The acting was above par-excellent from the entire cast and it is only when the scenes rely a bit too much on the script where things seem to struggle. (Whoever wrote the insults however get's a solid A-)

Is the movie cliché? Yes. However, I never found myself trying to fill in the next line or scene because I was never really bored watching the story unfold.

The soundtrack felt well suited and the overall polish on production was good.

I was pleasantly surprised with this one. Hope you are too!

A messy attempt at something interesting.

[Matt_Layden · 5/10 · 26 August 2011]

Antonio Banderas stars as Ned, a detective who has just acquired a new client. A giant man with anger issues who is looking for the love of his life, a sexy woman whom he's never met. He was stuck in prison and she kept his hope alive by writing to him. Now he's out and is looking for her. Along the way Ned finds himself being followed and dead bodies turn up everywhere. Is there more to this case than meets the eye?

The short answer is no. The Big Bang is a film that promises much and delivers little. I'm a lover of detective flicks. Film Noir is one of my favourite genres and this flick looked promising and at the very least visually pleasing. It succeeded on the latter portion, since the film is drenched is vibrant colours that wouldn't exist in a normal realistic setting. Each room has it's own colour scheme, we go from green to yellow to red to purple. All the colours of the spectrum are portrayed here and it's enough to grab your sense. The story on the other hand is enough to bore you out of the experience.

We meet Ned in an interrogation room where three cops are questioning him about the events that lead up to his current situation. So a good portion of the film is told in flashbacks from Ned's perspective. His character is the classic film noir detective, minus the outfit. The character himself has zero relate-ability and is not interesting enough for a lead. The case itself isn't interesting enough. We are on the quest to find a woman and at some points during the film, we wonder is she even exists. A subplot to the story is Chris Elliott's character, a billionaire reclusive who is looking for the God Particle. It's very science fiction in parts and his quest for such a thing leads the the inevitable climax, which is right out of the film 2012.

The sad part is that the film is not interesting enough to keep your attention. It might be pretty to look at, but for a film that relies so heavily on the mystery of the film noir genre, it fails to attract attention. There are parts of the film that I don't get because I think I started to day dream while it was on. I got the gist of it and the answers behind the questions regarding the missing girl are so uneventful that you wish you never began. The film comes off a w wacky out of this world depiction of the genre, but it really isn't. The colours and one or two scenes are unique, but the film as a whole is just a messy script with mediocre direction. As stated before, the cinematography is the highlight.

I can't recommend this flick, it's not out there enough to please Lynch fans and it's not Film noir enough to please Chinatown fans. Instead it feels like a missed opportunity. A cool credit sequence might get you excited, but the lack of direction in the story will leave you deflated.

Decent Film, Worth A View or Two

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 25 May 2011]

A private detective (Antonio Banderas) is hired to find a missing stripper. A simple job turns complicated when everyone he questions ends up dead.

I can imagine Antonio Banderas looking at this script and weighing in his mind if he wants it or not. Then he gets to the sex scene, and he says, "I'm in." (And I have been told he helped in casting Autumn Reeser, so this makes it even more likely.) The script is interesting, sometimes a bit bizarre, but for Banderas that is the clincher, for sure. Other than that, despite being the main character, he is actually the least interesting part of the movie.

The press release compares the film to "Sin City" and "Big Lebowski". I can see "Lebowski" somewhat, but agree completely with the "Sin City" comparison. That was actually the first thing I thought of after a few minutes of analyzing the style. The film uses odd angles (sometimes to a dangerous extreme) and saturated colors. I thought in many scenes the backgrounds were even more beautiful than the foregrounds or the people in them.

What to say about the physics angle? I have seen many complaints online from people who say the plot was not about physics and that the same story could be told with a different topic. I raised this to director Tony Krantz and he made a clear argument that physics is not just central to the plot, but the very plot itself. If you did not get this, I recommend giving the film a second view.

The Snoop Dogg claim was deeply philosophical, but I feel it was not properly explored. Is sex with men just one after another with no real difference? And whether yes or no, how does this fit into the film's overall message? I do not know, but for whatever reason -- perhaps my background in philosophy and women's studies -- this line jumped out at me.

The supporting cast is also impressive. I mean, Sam Elliott and James VanDerBeek? Incredible. Autumn Reeser truly a joy. Elliott was actually a bit weaker than usual (I think he works best when his role is minimized) but I can never say no to him or his mustache.

I do have to call out Banderas' accent. As one reviewer wrote, "Antonio Banderas's mumbling was mostly unintelligible." I would not be so harsh, but the fact remains that I missed many of his lines because he could no deliver them. I can understand Puss in Boots from "Shrek", so I know he is capable of speaking clearly... this is my only real complaint.

Pick this one up. Great film, very good twists and turns, with a blend of intrigue and sex that will grab your attention. The DVD and Blu-Ray has a few features on it, and if you are the type who loves audio commentaries (I do), director Krantz will provide you with more than a fair share of background...

Blatant Rip-Off

[markbhill · 22 February 2013]

This movie is such a blatant ripoff of Murder, My Sweet (1944) a great film based on Raymond Chandler's Farewell, My Lovely. And nowhere in any of the film's info is Chandler even mentioned.

Here are some of the similarities:

-The opening scene in the interrogation room.

-The detective is hired by a very large man to help find the man's girlfriend.

-They both go to the club the girl used to work but the place has changed

And that's just a few of the plot devices lifted from Murder, My Sweet.

I don't mind films that are homages to other films, or even parodies, but sheesh, give the original some credit. The director is quoted as saying he was inspired by the movies Touch of Evil and HUD. Okay, yeah whatever.

Judge for yourself.

Absolutely horrible film

[Slobberknocker00 · 1/10 · 24 February 2011]

I'm amazed that anyone liked this. It starts out quite promisingly and descends into a boring and quite embarrassing physics lecture, with nudity.

Antonio Banderas is a tough P.I., who ends up over his head in a conspiracy that will drain your will to live. If you like people talking non-stop about neutrons (even during sex), you may enjoy it.

A great cast is squandered, Banderas tries hard, but the whole film is just a total and absolute waste of everyone's time, especially the viewer's. How the director got these actors together is beyond me. To be fair, it is very well made, and looks great, but the script is so smug and self-satisfied, you'll wince at pretty much every line.

Thinking about it makes my head hurt, don't be sucked in by the cast, you'll regret it. The good reviews here must be from friends of the director...

Visually stunning, fascinating neo noir

[NateWatchesCoolMovies · 7/10 · 18 September 2015]

The Big Bang, although imperfect, is a well made, valiant effort from relative newcomer Tony Krantz. It welds together several recognizable genres for a dazzling technicolor coat of a flick, with one of the most interesting troupe of actors, all non type casted, in the last decade or so. You have the noirish detective yarn, the hard bitten postmodern crime thriller, and something unique as well: a constant running theme of physics, evident in both the snappy scientific jargon the actors get to chew on, and the dazzling, neo noirish color palette ranging from eye popping purples to smoky deep blues. Antonio Banderas ditches the strong silent shtick to play private investigator Ned Cruz, a fast talking wiseass who gets in way over his head when a giant Russian ex boxer (Robert Maillet, priceless) hires him to find his luscious pen pal Lexie Parsimmon (Sienna Guillory). This leads him into a dangerous web of eccentric characters including pseudo astro physicist billionaire Simon Kestral (Sam Elliott in a hairdo that would make David Bowie blush), a shady porn director (Snoop Dogg), a sexy small town waitress (Autumn Reeser, making everyone sweat in one of the hottest sex scenes I've ever seen put to celluloid), a kinky ex Hollywood star (James Van Der Beek), and more. The film jumps around in time, as any good noir should, as Ned tells his story to three relentless detectives, burnt out Skeres (Delroy Lindo), sharp, sleazy Frizer (Thomas Kretschmann, excellent), and volatile Poley (William Fichtner steals the show as the bratty, hotshot prick of the trio). There's work from Jimmi Simpson, Bill Duke, and Rebecca Mader. It's a bit muddled at times, and the inevitable style over substance claim will undoubtedly be heard, but it's got style, energy and ambition in droves, providing a neon lit verbal and visual maze of head scratching intrigue and priceless dialogue for the cast to play in. Well worth a visit.

I can't believe Sam Elliott was involved with this garbage ......

[merklekranz · 1/10 · 18 November 2018]

This movie is quite a bit of nonsense, including a story that is being spoon fed by way of flashbacks. It is confusing and makes zero sense. Basically, I felt like I was watching someone's acid trip. Special mention must be made of Sienna Guillory's attempt at acting, which can only be described as pitiful. Sam Elliott, sporting a long blonde mane doesn't appear till the film is well beyond terrible, and the sci-fi mumbo jumbo conclusion only adds to the awfulness. You have to ask yourself this question. Do I really want to totally waste 101 minutes of my life watching total garbage like "The Big Bang"? Trust me, thank me later, because this is one of the most meaningless and awful films I have had the misfortune to sit through. A well deserved (one star) rating. - MERK

Quick, simple Review

[xllence · 8/10 · 21 January 2011]

I really liked the noir style of the movie, but it looses a bit in the end. Nice and complicated plot that keeps you in mystery until the end but the use of metaphors between the plot and physics are not always very good. Banderas (havent seen him in a while) gives a very good performance. The use of special effects is absolutely genius. The director is playing with smoke, light and colors in such a way that the outcome is just beautiful.

The movie plot and atmosphere get a 10/10, but counting and the "buts" i put a 8/10.

In general, very good movie, very good actors, a must see for noir lovers and not only.

visually stunning, but with some story deficiency

[Floh-Ruehle · 7/10 · 16 May 2011]

This movie is far from being perfect. It is also far from being one of the worst movies I have seen, like some reviewers claim.

The movie delivers quite nicely in several areas: It kept me entertained throughout the full length of it. The cinematography is daring and plain beautiful. The acting is alright, but nothing special. The combination of film noir with very modern imagery and dialogue was weird but interesting to see. The whole woven in metaphorical lines and puns (look at some light effects in the bar!) about particle physics were funny and entertaining to me (but then again, I am a physicist...). But they did not really help the plot or the characters and seemed a little unmotivated and far fetched.

I have to admit though that the storyline of the movie seemed a little half-baked. Take a cup of David Lynch weirdness, a few spoons of sciency talk, a bit of crime genre love story and a few twists and turns for the viewer. No, this does not give you a good story if mixed together. It gives you a strange movie unlike any other. And if it wasn't so well made, this movie would really have sucked given those ingredients.

Overall, I can say that the movie was entertaining, mainly for its stylish mood and look, but nothing that I would recommend as a must-see to my friends.

Not worth watching...

[kamixnamja · 1/10 · 20 February 2011]

With Antonio Banderas being the lead role, I was looking forward to watching this movie.

He was, however, the part that probably made this movie a huge failure. 90% of this movie is dialogue/narration, and a majority of that is by Banderas. The story itself may have some promise, but it's so difficult to follow because it's impossible to understand what Banderas is saying for most of the movie.

The movie supposedly has witty dialogue and clever punchlines, but because they're delivered by Banderas, you don't understand any of it. You hear "mumble, mutter, accent on wrong word, pause at awkward part of the sentence, mumble" followed by the characters on screen laughing at whatever it was that he just said.

At first, I would go back and rewatch with volume on high to hear what it was that he said, but after the first 30 minutes, I gave up.

Don't waste your time with this movie. You will just give yourself a headache.

Worth watching

[jpathomas · 28 July 2011]

I'm a casual movie buff, not a genera expert or closet critic. I can't speak to the films undertones or subtext. All I can tell you is what I thought.

The Big Bang showed up on Netflix streaming a few days ago and since it had Banderas in it I tossed it in my queue. I had no idea what it was about, no idea when it was released or how well it did in the box office. I just figured that it couldn't be worse than "Ecks vs. Sever".

Ten minutes in I was hooked. I know some people won't like the extreme visual style, hard juxtaposition and modern take on Nior style, but I found it interesting. As for the plot it kept me guessing (wrong) to the very end.

As far as the acting goes I thought it was good. Banderas I (almost) always like. Sienna Guillory I'd never heard of and Sam Elliot in a role I would have NEVER imagined him in. The movie is full of good supporting actors too. Thomas Kretschmann, Bill Duke, William Fichtner and move. Everyone does a good job.

The stand out for me was the quirky character of Fay Neman played by Autumn Reeser. She and Banderas share the chattiest love scene ever and redefine physics geeks.

I enjoyed this movie and I'll watch it again. It's strange but compelling and worth the hour and a half.

Pathetic

[paulimiles · 2/10 · 8 May 2011]

I'll keep it short. Putrid. Banderas can't act to save his life. He looked and sounded like a cross between Mr.Bean and Manuel from Fawlty Towers. He's now on my black list of actors never to watch again. The story line was farcical especially the "Big Bang" part. How anyone could find all the scientific mumbo jumbo entertaining beats me. The only thing saving it form a zero rating was a couple of hot chicks and the nice twist at the end involving the cops. Unless you're infatuated with Banderas then I advise you to stay well away from this turkey. I was tempted to switch off after ten minutes but stuck it out till the end. I wish I had gone with my gut instinct. One last bit of advice for American movie makers wishing to use Banderas in the future. Let him speak in Spanish and display English subtitles for all his lines in the movie. It would be more coherent and better all round for everybody. Hopeless - 1/5 stars.

Weird and Stylish Detective Story

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 17 April 2011]

The private detective from Los Angeles Ned Cruz (Antonio Banderas) is interrogated by LAPD Detectives Poley (William Fichtner), Frizer (Thomas Kretschmann) and Skeres (Delroy Lindo). Cruz is blind after being hit on the face and asks many times whether "she is alive". Cruz explains to the detectives that after a lost case of his client and Hollywood star Adam Nova (James Van Der Beek), he is tired and returns to his office to rest. Out of the blue, the washed up boxer Anton 'The Pro' Protopov (Robert Maillet) comes to his office to hire him to find his missing girlfriend and former stripper Lexie Persimmon. Cruz recalls that five years ago, the Russian mobster Skinny Faddeev (Bill Marlowe) gave 30 million dollars in blood diamond in advance to him to lose a fight against his nephew. However, Anton killed the nephew with a punch and when Skinny was found death, he was sentenced to life. While in prison, Lexie writes two hundred and sixty letters to him and they fall in love for each other. When a criminal confesses the murder of Skinny, Anton is released but he does not find Lexie.

Ned Cruz starts the investigation and finds a lead that Lexie might be in San Celeritas, New Mexico. Cruz notes that a black Lincoln is following him and he believes that the Russian Mafia is chasing him. However, he heads to the spot and in the Planck 's Constant Coffer, he has an affair with the waitress Autumn Reeser (Fay Neman) that helps him. After reading the letters, Cruz becomes obsessed for Lexie. When Cruz is invited to have dinner with the delusional millionaire Simon Kestral (Sam Elliott), he is introduced to his wife Julie Kestral (Sienna Guillory) and the geek physicist Niels Geck (Jimmi Simpson) and he believes he has resolved the case. However, nothing is what seems to be and Cruz only discovers the truth when it is late.

"The Big Bang" is a weird and stylish detective story with a promising beginning and a good twist near the end. However, the part when Ned Cruz meets Simon Kestral is boring and a complete mess and the conclusion is awful. The cinematography and the music score are very nice. The cast has good performances and it is always good to see William Fichtner. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Morte por Encomenda" ("Death by Order")

don't bother.

[inSAniTANi · 1/10 · 24 May 2012]

Absolute horrendous. Terrible.

Tries to mix one PI story with some b o l locks of absolute nonsensical and no attachment nor logic or deeper purpose whatsoever to the story.

The only moron worse than whoever wrote this crap, were the people who actually financed this.

Hopeless.

I love Banderas but to watch this, I recommend you are drugged down on 50 mg liquid v ilium pr e-op in hospital or something.

so many forbidden words which are normal words, get a grip IMDb.

Have to add some lines here to pass validation... she sh. shew Shae

lo scat. All words with a space in them are censored.

Intrinsic madness lies open to the one who sees the eyes of the dead!

Poor Raymond Chandler

[battuta-952-75880 · 6/10 · 19 January 2011]

It seems no one has ever read a Raymond Chandler or seen one of his films, because this is a remake (without any credit to Chandler) of his book "Farewell, My Lovely". And it's not a good remake either. The mix of 1930's attempt at dialog and action doesn't always feel right in a modern setting. It can feel forced. And, it you are a Chandler fan, who is the originator of this genre, it doesn't live up to the master. Also, if you are familiar with "Farewell, My Lovely" (or the best film version "Murder, My Sweet" with an amazing Dick Powell in a career changing role for him) then there really isn't any surprise in the plot either. All in all it's a bit of a disappointment, even if I try to appreciated the attempt, and Bandera isn't that bad as a Philip Marlowe substitute.

Horrible

[thepro-339-966999 · 1/10 · 8 April 2012]

Worst movie I've seen. Really bad light effects, bad camera positions, really bad movie, the sky is clearly a green screen on the back. Plot sucks, the idea of it might be good, but it's attempt to become a comedy sucked.

The only thing that can be rescued are the sex scenes, which were quite good (Anyone would agree with me, sadly this isn't a porn film, so I won't add any stars for it)

I'm amazed that the budget was of 17 million, it was probably all spent on Antonio Banderas.

I do not recommend this movie for anyone, unless they want to fall sleep.

A decent watch for noir fans...

[MrGKB · 6/10 · 18 February 2012]

...primarily on the strength of a surprisingly witty (though highly derivative--my jury is out on plagiarism) script and competent direction from the benighted team that brought us "Otis," along with a pretty good cast headed by Antonio "Desperado" Banderas, whose Spanish accent has shown much improved intelligibility over the years. Support from the likes of William "Drive Angry" Fichtner, Autumn "Valentine" Reeser, Thomas "King Kong" Kretschmann, Delroy "Malcolm X" Lindo, Robert "300" Maillet, Sam "Road House" Elliott, and Sienna "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" Guillory is of piece; there's really not a weak link in the bunch. Shelly "The Wolfman" Johnson's camera wrangling is appropriately stylish and well-lit, Johnny "The Smiths" Marrs' score fits nicely, and the production/artistic design and visual effects belie the relative low budget of the whole affair. Despite its direct-to-video fate, "The Big Bang" would have likely done well on the big screen, given proper promotion. I didn't really care, since I only venture out to the theater for films that absolutely demand my early attention anyway.

The only genuine conceit of the show is its insinuation of concepts of quantum physics into the plot line, with various visual references to same scattered throughout the film. It's a reasonably clever gimmick that's mostly pulled off well, and at least ties in with the climactic denouement. The average spud may not understand or appreciate most of it, of course, but it still elevates "The Big Bang" at least a notch above standard Hollywood fare, and certainly well above typical direct-to-video offerings.

Definitely worth a watch for genre fans.

Blechh! But how does it end?

[derekph-1 · 1/10 · 10 January 2012]

First, read the other reviews that rate this lowest - no need to repeat what they say, yes, this is a total piece of garbage. Banderas is awful, the script is pathetic, everyone involved should be ashamed. But in case you are wondering how it ends (yes, I actually watched it all, I was curious) - the letters were written by a cross-dressing physicist (I'm not kidding), the cops turn out to be the villains (Oh No!), Banderas manages to kill all three of them (shocker!), the Big Bang experiment just blows up and leaves a huge crater (whew!), Banderas gets away with the two girls and the diamonds, which they find in the gecko's tank. So now you don't need to waste your time watching to the end, stop wherever you are, it does NOT get better.

A whole lot of fun if you just pay attention

[Reflux · 8/10 · 18 January 2011]

Some very good acting (especially from Sam Elliot), an unusual script filled with sometimes strangely funny references to cosmological and particle physics, and a jazzy style of direction lead to an inexpensive, yet engaging "private detective" story. Antonio Banderas' Latin, fish-out-of-water accent (the detective) initially seems odd for such an iconic American role, but in short order, it just blends-in with the many other off-center characters and events that populate the film.

It's flaws are irrelevant and understandable considering its limited budget and shooting schedule; it's a refreshing hour and a half of entertaining stuff that smartly never takes itself too seriously.

Banderas wasn't Mitchum and The Big Bang is a rough portrait of "Farewell my Love" ...then....!!!

[elo-equipamentos · 6/10 · 10 April 2019]

When start to watch this picture l had realize that already saw something alike, a tough guy looking for his girlfriend, touché Mitchum's Farewell my Love, a bit changes here and there, Banderas the private investigator was under pressure already in the ropes on dark corner surrounded by three policemen asking for diamonds from the Mob, seemingly the whole story told in flashbacks sounds good, the premise is true auspicious, until reach in an inconceivable idea of a millionaire built secretly in the underground of the ghost city a burdensome particle accelerator a.k.a. L.H.C. Large Hadron Collider as France has a lookalike in developing, trying to reproduce the big bang as title suggest, after this point the picture break off and felt in a utter nonsense, the blast is too slow that didn't match with Bandera's car, here we talking about a nuclear blast, all people know such power it has, but the car is more faster, spare me sometimes they think the viewers are stupid and dumb!!

Resume: First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 6

Pretty Awful

[albrechtcm · 1/10 · 31 May 2011]

After this painful ripoff of "Murder, My Sweet" (Dick Powell) and "The Falcon Takes Over"(George Sanders) and "Farewell, My Lovely", (Robert Mitchum), Raymond Chandler must be recoiling in his grave. The opening was entirely stolen almost word for word from "Murder, My Sweet"; the blinded Marlowe being questioned, then Marlowe alone in his dark office looking out the window when suddenly he sees this dinosaur aka Moose Malloy reflected in the glass. Then follows the bar and the fight routine. Later Marlowe aka Cruz asks: "How will I find you?" "I'll find you." I was driving my wife crazy quoting lines before the actors could get them out. Okay, the Moose Malloy character was bigger than any before, I'll give them that. But the accents of Cruz and Anton made them almost unintelligible. Subtitles might have helped. They changed Velma to Lexie, but sadly they were nothing alike. Velma was a hard-as-nails fighter while Lexie was the classic stripper with a heart of gold. Starting with that, the plot line began to change slightly, presumably to make it fresher and more up-to-date in this fourth outing of the same story, but none of the changes made the story better by any means. I'm a great Sam Elliot fan. Loved him in "Did you hear about the Morgans?" but in this role I was embarrassed for him. Maybe voice-over commercials don't pay as well as I thought. The cover promised an intense thriller filled with action with, of course, no mention of a tired remake, borrowed from Mr. Chandler without anybody's consent. Half the film involved three detectives casually jawing with Cruz, and it only picked up toward the end in a ridiculously contrived grand finale. Slow and tedious. Instead of asking How did they do it? I'd ask: Why did they do it?