Badge of Honor (2015)

Simply A Masterpiece

Expected more

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

There are women in the film, but none has anything you could call a personality.

It is a great movie, but needs to have a parental review. I haven't even gotten 30 minutes into the movie before 2 full blown sex scene hit. The scenes are full nudity and breast are fully out there.I really don't care for movies like this. I am interested in the movie not the sex scene.If I wanted to see a sex scene I would get a porno.I just want to let everyone know what is in the movie. So, not recommended for anyone who doesn't want to see this kind of movie with nudity in it.

As a low-budget DTV production, "Badge of Honor" is a credible effort. It's not in the same league as "We Own the Night," "Street Kings" or "Serpico;" however, it maintains the audience's attention and interest. Its greatest strength lies in credible performances by the entire cast. It's greatest weakness is undoubtedly the incessant camera movement. I can't remember a single shot that looked as if the camera were locked down. The amount of camera motion, particularly in inappropriate shots, was frequently distracting. It also seemed a little thin on forensics and police procedures. For that matter, a large drug deal in an early scene didn't seem very realistic. The POV was also a little muddled, as at least two characters had memory flashes. Compared to top-notch police procedural films, it ranks somewhere in the middle of the herd, well back from the must-see films. However, compared to DTV productions shot in Eastern Europe starring faded action stars from the 1970s and 1980s, it's a much more rewarding cinematic experience.

... but only if you are a casting director looking to find a formerly A-list actor who has the chops but has not been getting the roles needed to show off her skills.The rest of the film is basically a clinic in how to make a sub-B indie product: 1. Pull together some actors who are slightly past their BEST BY date and will work cheap.2. Lay down the heaviest sound track you can, because everyone knows that deficiencies in the production (direction, lighting, acting, scripting) can be "hidden" if the viewer is distracted by a heavy sound track.3. Shoot the entire film in as much natural light as you can. If anyone complains, call it "authentic". Others of course might just call it "dark." This saves a lot of money.4. Speed up all the action scenes just a little, maybe by dropping a few frames here and there. This makes the action look faster and cooler than it actually is.5. (Optional) If you are the director and writer, give yourself a one-word name -- like Madonna -- so that viewers will remember your work and avoid it in the future Finally, for the record, Martin Sheen is one of my all time faves but PA-LEEZE to imagine he can still play a professional, active-duty, cop at 75 years of age almost qualifies this film as Science Fiction.

I am British, so rarely watch US TV crime series. Maybe for that reason there were some angles in this "dirty cop" drama which were new to me, and kept me watching to the end.But they were not developed as they could have been, and the screenplay was to blame. The direction, too, is mediocre with the same tired style of flashbacks to patch holes in the exposition that we see in so many direct-to-DVD movies. I think the intended ironic statement about "truth" and "honor" is indeed there, but gets muffled in the obligatory Hollywood ending.The heroine and the "redeemed" cop were too lightweight, while Martin Sheen popping up in a supporting role, and still-beautiful Natasha Hensbridge in a dispensable one, only served to undermine the intended grittiness and remind us we are watching a Hollywood movie.I am posting because I think this movie deserves better than the current 4.7 score. I give it 6, and most of that is for the storyline rather than the way it is realised on screen.