MovieChat Forums > Last Man Standing (1996) Discussion > deserve's a higher rating...

deserve's a higher rating...


...between say 6.8 and 7.1

good film with a good story and a solid cast. certainly one of Hill's best.

reply

i finally got around to 'finishing' it after 15 years. i had started it several times over the years and got bored with it, and i have a theory why it isn't rated higher

i think the conflict is a bit too literary, nebulous, and the many many characters are hard to keep up with (who is with whom, and against whom) and thirdly, that much of the story is very subtle. and a bit SLOW. i think that's what irritated me and made me turn the channel several times; it seemed slow.

but the action is good, and it's proper bloody.

these are my theories why it's not higher on the scale here



drugs...changed...everything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related

reply

Not really. Its not that good.

Its that man again!!

reply


not really what? what did i say that you are responding to?



drugs...changed...everything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related

reply

It deserves lower, it's an unoriginal, cliche ridden crap fest with boring, run of the mill action.

\m/

reply

I love it. I gave it a 10. It is a very clever movie.

reply

"Clever"? Hill is possibly my favorite director, but you need to see the other iterations of this story and watch his other films so you can see how woefully "unclever" this film is.

http://jmoneyyourhoney.filmaf.com/owned

reply

Not rly...to many plot holes and underused characters...no development at all...and even the action isnt that cool or good...to little blood squibs and to many bullets in every damn pistol or machine gun...unrealstic and boring, but Bruce Willis and Christopher Walken does some good work infront of the camera and saves this feast of utter reek from total misery.

~If the realistic details fails, the movie fails~

reply