Watch Kiss the Girls For Free

Sorry, this movie sucks

Powerful

It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

heres a film straight out of a thriller book called kiss the girls by James Paterson a great author for twist in his book so in this film we see that Alex cross played by an excellent Morgan freeman searching for his his niece but with unsolved cases of missing women Alex loves solving the insolvable but with time running out the rest of the cast we Dr Kate mctiernan who is a doctor but is person who likes sports but is feisty character played by Ashley Judd but as we cut back to women being takes Casanova a great lover of collectible items of dreamshis plans for the women he took in his lair being carefully no give the evidence away but with a twist in the tale he plans his next victim but when one of them escapes .she makes it known that she that Alex crosses niece can be got but in a race against time to figure out where she was an who was holding them but with a film like this you don't know who the good guy or bad guy is so figuring out will leave a twist and shock you as the scenery is beautiful shot in the deep south this is a good stylish thriller that will leave you wanting a sequel 7/10and my 90 review

Purely an utterly mediocre TV-quality movie that Morgan Freeman no doubt chose to star in mostly to pad his bank account. (I truly hope that he doesn't actually have this bad a taste in scripts, except when he's hungry for Benjamins.) I can't honestly say that it was completely terrible, but it definitely wasn't worth the time lost, and it wasn't all that original either--just a jumble of stuff that mostly seems to have been used before with, admittedly, a few new elements. There are plot holes left and right, and the cops and FBI all seem to be pretty incompetent (God, I hope I don't ever have to depend on this quality of law enforcement). The mild torture porn scenes were so intentionally aimed at titillation that they were basically just annoying. No performances, including Freeman's, were particularly captivating, although none embarrassingly bad either. Uninspired would be the best way to describe this whole experience. I have to admit that I didn't know who was the killer until it was revealed, but when it was, it was totally unconvincing. A day later, it's even more unconvincing. The reason you can't guess the identity of the evil mastermind is that it doesn't really work well with the story at all--the motive and personality never seemed like it was ever there. That particular character was never developed much at all in the movie. It looks like the story writers (Patterson doesn't write most of his own work, as I understand it) picked the villain simply because it would be very hard to guess, and for no other reason. (Maybe the book was better, but in this case I seriously doubt it, and the book would waste more of your life.) Therefore, as far as who did it, I don't feel thick at all for not having a clue. Which is a good way to summarize this movie: clueless.

Currently rated at 6.5 on IMDb. Too many poor movies in the range 5.5 to 6.5. And some truly abysmal ones.This is not a poor movie. It has it's flaws, particularly the handwriting discovery towards the end - just not believable. But all round this is a good movie. Don't discard it based on the current IMDb rating. It is definitely worth watching. Both Freeman and Judd turn in great performances, as does Cary Elwes. Jeremy Piven and Tony Goldwyn put in their usual competent work, but they only appear briefly. The storyline has some nice twists, too. There are lots of good reviews here if you want to know more about the film. Mine is just to encourage you to not dismiss it out of hand.

Not bad as a movie by itself, but shied away from the hard-hitting book which, if filmed properly, would have been the foundation for a really creepy, really controversial film with a 2 - 21 age restriction. Instead, this lukewarm, pretentious drivel that is an absolute letdown. Okay, the book is gruesome, cruel, vicious, everything dark and menacing, and it is the absolute opposite of family-friendly and politically correct, but if that is what you want, go see a Walt Disney movie. Instead, just like American PSYCHO, the movie is a tepid mess compared to what it could have been.I'd have suggested pegging it down a notch or two for the silver screen, but they brought it all the way down to virtually nothing shocking at all. That first scene with the girl being led through the deep woods had the absolute feel of the book to it, but cut away to the aftermath crime scene too quickly. Read that particular 'juggling' scene in the book, and understand what should at the very least have been there. How can I put it lightly for those with tender sensibilities, and who then shouldn't be at this movie's screening in the first place? Psychologists would call it rejection, but as a way of a final bit of abuse, the killer availed himself to juggling the girl's bare breasts before murdering her. She cried and pleaded all the time. I full well realize the cinema industry would have balked at that sort of thing, but much of it could have been off- camera, as long as this defining scene that absolutely needed to be there, wasn't omitted entirely. But film-makers were keen to cash in on the success of the novel without being willing to commit something at least a whole lot more heinous to film.Need we talk about the snake? This would have been way over the top for almost all audiences, but again, the graphic detail need not have been shown. I don't think I am at liberty to discuss this any further on a politically-correct family site, so just read the book, and prepare to enter a nightmare.If you don't wanna walk the walk, film something else. Leave a thrilling, suspenseful read alone, you are discrediting it.