Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

nammage Never mind the awful sound effects of not only the weapons but also of the punching. Or the mobster leader who sounds and acts like a combination of Alan Alda and Woody Allen or the fact the "gangsters" are just street punks. No, forget all that. This film rips other films off. The Godfather, Scarface, The Dogs of War (near the end) even ripping lines from other films. There is nothing original about this film. It would just be better to watch those other films. There's also some real stupid scenes. Like the fight of the gang dominating leadership, or what not. It's not even a gang, really. It's three couples: three guys, three girls. Then you have other stupid scenes like a guy being shot in broad daylight with a lot of people around and no one anywhere flinches. They just go about their day like nothing happened. The reason? Most likely, they don't know they're being filmed in a low budget movie. Which is why they don't react.The Scarface rip (original not remake, though probably remake too) is the brother wanting an incestuous relationship with his sister, who's blind in this film. And anyone touches her he beats them down and then beats or chokes her because she's his property. Scarface, right? I think almost all mob films rip The Godfather in some way. Why not? Great film. Another stupid reason, they just got $75,000 each in a big diamond robbery and they're celebrating by dancing around in an abandoned building with a little portable stereo but the thing is: There's no music playing. So, they're dancing around with no music pretending there is music.Even more stupid, and probably the most stupid aspect of all: in a 95 minute film, the plot doesn't begin until 59 minutes into the film. I love it when one of the bad "gangsters" says after being shot and dying, "Tell my mom I love her..." Can you be anymore cliché? As an aside, I think the blind sister likes being choked because she gets choked throughout the film. The purse snatcher choked her, her brother choked her, and a mobster choked her. Or maybe the director has a fetish of blind girls being choked, who knows? I just found it weird that this one character gets choked by several characters throughout the film.Overall, it's watchable. The acting isn't bad, the direction, script, editing, and sound effects are all bad.

Masked Superstar Mr. X This movie did have some good parts to it and was a nice watch if you like Independent action films. I thought the story was a good one with some action and mystery. It was cool following the street gang's life and seeing where it took them. Also, when the Italian crime family gets blended into the storyline with the street gang it's a nice blend and changes the storyline nicely. As mentioned by somebody else, the acting did range in quality it seemed like. But, Jamie Velez who played the lead role of "Freddy" did a solid job and was fun to watch. Jamie plays the tough guy who looks like he can't lose, and you cheer him on hoping he doesn't! I think the writer/director Conrad Glover wrote that character well. Raine Brown who played gang member "Julie" did a great job portraying her character. She is one tough cookie! It was cool seeing Conrad Glover, play the smooth hustler "Billy". The main problem I had with this film was the sound effects; which is related to some special effects as well. I'm mostly talking about the gun firing throughout the film. Make the sound effects more realistic and this is a nicely formed action film!

dbborroughs Shot on video and transfered to real film no budget movie is about a street gang running into a battle with a crime family over a suitcase full of money.Unevenly acted and put together this is film that doesn't really work because its so up and down. What works is fine but what doesn't kills the film outright. I'm wondering if a severe lack of money made the filmmakers go with what they had so that they had to keep the bad performances, or poor shot choices (say close ups that are partial faces) and occasionally really bad sound. What is annoying with the film is that this film could have been a real low budget winner but the lack of funds (I hope) got in the way. Sadly its the sort of thing you'll remember because it didn't work rather than because it did.