On a scale of 1-10, how would you rate the righteousness?

Robert De Niro gets stabbed to death by a midget in red?

That's awesome.

It's just so unbearably slow and predictable that I couldn't wait to watch the other film I rented tonight - Bangkok Dangerous.

-4?

I think you've uncovered a new grading system - if you can't wait to watch Bangkok Dangerous, you probably aren't watching a very good movie.

haha I like that. And this is NOT a very good movie. It's a pretty bad one. I put down C at first but as I thought about it I realized this is truly just a lengthened Law and Order episode with more predictability, less intensity, and considerably better acting.
3.5/10

Jon Avnet should never be allowed to direct a "thriller" that has some sort of twist at the end. First 88 minutes now this. It's odd, the best reason (and only reason) to watch the film is the film's problem because it becomes way too easy to guess who the killer is. Avnet tries his best to drag the audience along into thinking De Niro is the killer, but how many times can you show a killing without showing De Niro's face? After the first couple of times isn't the audience going to become a little suspicious? And since that becomes obvious, what's the point in having Leguizamo, Whalberg or Gugino being the killer? Throw in an obvious curveball involving a psychiatrist and you know that Pacino is the killer about 30 minutes in.

It's a shame De Niro and Pacino couldn't have at least acted like they weren't bored out of their minds. De Niro does a little better job in getting away with it, but if both had brought the same intensity that they're capable of, this could've been a least a little better. The script is ultimately the film's downfall so it couldn't have been that much better, but they could've at least made it a little more interesting.

*1/2