13

I didn’t even realize this was a remake of a film the same director made just a few years earlier. And honestly, I’m not sure I want to see the original now—it feels kind of pointless to watch the exact same story with a different cast. That said, I might’ve picked the lesser version, even though it has a bigger name cast. But here's the real question: do good actors always mean a good movie? For the first half hour, I seriously doubted it. The pacing dragged so much I almost turned it off. But then, the core of the movie kicked in, and things got way more intense and interesting. I was honestly a bit shocked at how quickly it shifted gears. From that point on, it held my attention all the way through to the end. I’m still amazed that during those Russian roulette scenes, no one seemed to shit their pants. I know I would’ve... more than once. (13.06.2012)

Special feat full of emerging, bankrupt, or mediocre actors. The scenario is almost ad absurdum, although nowadays anything is possible. (14.08.2011)

A decent thriller with a good cast in supporting roles. Russian roulette is quite a tough subject, but I was disappointed that we don't see much blood and heads being shot, which is a big minus for me, as the film is quite predictable and lacks excitement. The cheaper visuals bothered me in places, but it was good for entertainment. Jason Statham, Mickey Rourke and the crazy Michael Shannon were good. 60%. (27.04.2016)