As a whole, contemporary film is poor, lousy, empty, lifeless, and just a waste of resources.

This film is another of 1,000s of lifeless contemporary films, and is why I cautiously consider anything made from 2000 on.

Note: I love classic film but that's not to say some classics aren't poor, if not entirely offensive. But as a whole, classic film depended on good story, acting, and directing. Most importantly, if the acting leg didn't stand the whole table would topple.

This is not the case today where anyone with influence or money can produce film.

Here's my breakdown:

STORY: This story is on par with swill like "The Punisher," and so many "stories" about men gone crazy. Here's what you need:

1. Fast Cars (think the film "Fast and Furious" 2. Wealth (why is it every one of these goons has seemingly limitless resources?) 3. Lost love of some kind (this was barely fleshed out here) 4. Conflict (this too is both weak and convoluted) 5. Bad acting (yep, but they still get paid mucho)

Equally important ... the film starts in the middle of "I DON'T KNOW!" and then jumps like a flea into a kill-fest.

What??? Did the writers and director (s) ever actually study under gifted mentors? How can anyone call this story anything other than pus out of a vending machine.

FULL Disclosure: The seeming hypocrisy here on my part here is that I thought the film "Blade" was fantastic. But that's largely because it's very much off center and skates the razor's edge. In addition, having a lead BLACK MALE doing the justice was way, way outside the white picket fence.

ACTING: I loved the films "The Matrix" and "The Terminator," each for diverse reasons. One reason in is that both leads (Reeves and Arnold) have either very few lines or they are brief. Neither of the mentioned actors can act. Let me reword that, most contemporary actors cannot act (well).

The acting here is passable, but is nonetheless useless in the context of a futile story.

TEMPO: Bounces around like a ball of flubber

CINEMATOGRAPHY: Dark

DIRECTING / WRITING: After looking over the resumes here I see one of the problems: this was co-directed by two guys (one a kick boxer) where it happens to be their first rodeo. The writer (only one) has a shallow resume with little but emptiness.

Is it a good film? No. It's horrible.

Should you watch this once? Yes, if you're between the ages of 14 - 25, and your idea of knowledge is Google.

Rating: 3 (for the cute puppy)