whynotsmile

Wow. what an enjoyable film. really short, light, breezy fun. the rock is fantastic. Probably the best action star working today. the dude just oozes charisma. and i liked Knoxville in it too. Real fun popcorn entertainment, with some great shot gun shoot outs. i was actually suprised how violent the thing was.

and that stripper was hot.

Corvin

I liked it, too. But I thought The Rundown was a better all-around movie.

Still, you're right about The Rock; the man does have a lot of charisma.

I also don't get a comment I read somewhere that Walking Tall's violence is of the WWF-style. The violence was just as realistic as any other action movie (the hand-to-hand scenes perhaps even more so), and it was also less "showy" than The Rundown's.

Rypro 525

hey remeber, as long as the blood is light, and no guts, you don't show any nudity (but you can get close to ) and you don't say the f word more then twice, the movie is pg13

Giles

this still looks a rainy afternoon video rental at best - the piss poorScorpion King, really altered my thoughts about The Rock.

Seantn

I have 25 minutes free tonight. Maybe i'll go see this and then take a 14 minute nap. I can probably squeeze that in a half-hour, right?

Jackskeleton

Saw it for free during the week. I enjoyed it. It's an hour of entertainment and that in itself was good stuff. plenty of violence (lacking the blood) and a fairly hot female character in a bra. Good times good times.

NitroJMS

I also caught a sneak preview earlier in the week. I admit I am a little biased since I'm a wrestling and Rock fan, but I really did enjoy the film. It's only 75 minutes, but it's never dull or drags. The movie's simply alot of fun in a small package. I'm glad they didn't drag it out to 2 hours like most action films nowadays. It told its story and got you out with time to spare.

jasonbird

Giles: You know these were my thoughts exactly. I hated
Scorpion King and was so pissed at teh movie that I hoped it
ruined the Rock as far as movies go. Let him stick to wrestling.

But then I happened to see Rundown and (maybe it was due to
thinking it was going to suck so bad) I really liked it. In fact, I
liked it so much that I'm hoping that Dwayne Johnson gets some
good oportunities in the future. I've actually been thinking of
watching Scorpion King again to see if it was the Rock
or something else that made me hate the movie.

Jason

Tarantino

I think it's the fact that it's a spinoff from The Mummy that made you hate it. Now THOSE are terrible movies.

matome

I enjoyed this a little bit more than The Rundown, which IMO was good but ran out of steam in the last act. If anyone has to take over for the Arnold icon I think the Rock is a much better call than say, Vin Diesel. At least there is some charisma here and even a small amount of acting chops.

wm lopez

Which WALKING TALL movie is better?
2004 or 1973

Patman

This is a film that's short on details and character development and long on the smackdowns.

If you're a fan of The Rock, you will get to see some decent action/fights, but as a film, its plot skims along at breakneck pace, and develops with little regard to logic and plausibility.

The best thing about the film is that it's brisk and short, probably around 80 minutes if that.

I give it 1.75 stars or a grade of C-.

DRG

It's not a deep film, but it's great for a quick mindless action entertainment fix. At 85 minutes, I honestly can't imagine it being much longer without feeling like 'phony' depth.

scott shelton

Try 75 minutes.

Gyno Rhino

The fighting was extremely Steven Seagal. I enjoyed it.

(as a side note, the stunt coordinator also worked with Seagal in "On Deadly Ground")

FiveO

I really enjoyed it also...and I've never been a big fan of The Rock.

My only complaint is that it was too short. They skipped over many things they could have expanded on a bit.

I'll be buying this one when it comes out.

If for nothing else except the broken tail light scene

jasonbird

Does that mean the Rock never gets hit?

B.A.

I liked it. *** out of *****

It was short and to the point.

Buford T Pusser

Only the original was true to the inspiration: Buford Pusser. The new one changed the name and location. For shame.

dcprules

I haven't seen it and don't know anything about the length, but from what I saw at filmjerk it's 86 minutes (including credits). They are usually pretty close about movie lengths (http://www.filmjerk.com/nuke/article870.html)

matome

I DO remember one of Seagal's flicks where he gets punched in the face and bleeds from the nose. I guess he's not invincible after all!

trigun

Actually, that was the other person's blood that just happened to get on Seagal

scott shelton

That FilmJerk is a great site. Good movie info and some smart movie critics.

But the film runs 75 minutes, with the end credits stretched out to 85, so it could come within striking distance of a typical feature-length running time.

God, how I wish those 10 extra minutes were devoted to character and storytelling.

Tarantino

There are other movies in the theaters that are longer and are devoted to character and storytelling. For someone like me who just got off work and wanted to turn my brain off and enjoy a movie, this was perfect.

Take it for what it is. You didn't expect to be moved by Walking Tall, did you?

scott shelton

Well, that sums it up right there, doesn't it?

Moved? Personally no, but I don't see why it didn't reach a little higher than the "wood goes boom" level of filmmaking it plays at. Even the sillyass ROAD HOUSE, the film this version of TALL emulates, had a decent story and characters to play around with.

But that's just me. And believe me, I'm taking this film for what it is: a 75 minute mess stripped of personality.