CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

jimbo-53-186511 The main problem with Meeting Evil is the fact that for almost the entire running time it is devoid of a point or a plot. It didn't help that many scenes in the film either didn't make sense or weren't explained. I'll attempt to highlight some of the many examples;The early scenes between Richie (Samuel L Jackson) and John Felton (Luke Wilson) are fairly interesting. Richie has an air of 'mystery' about him. This is great for openers, but the problem is that the writers don't go anywhere with Richie's character and don't develop him at all. As a result, it starts to get a bit boring when you find yourself over an hour into the film and yet you still don't learn anything about him. It's quite clear that John has several opportunities to escape from Richie, but never utilises any of the opportunities that he's given - this makes the film less of a tense affair in my opinion. I also felt it was somewhat contrived that Richie was always able to find John, no matter where John decided to go. In a bar, in a corn field. It's almost like somebody kept rubbing a lamp.I also found some aspects of the narrative to be somewhat contradictory; Richie goes round killing people seemingly for no reason - the only thing he mentions to John is that 'he kills people that are already dead'. My interpretation of this is that he kills people who he feels have nothing to live for and would therefore imply that he would only kill people that he knows. However, throughout the film Richie seemingly kills lots of people who he doesn't know and that just happen to get in his way so again this seems somewhat contradictory. I also found it ridiculous when it's revealed that Richie is a hit-man that has been paid by John's wife to kill John. This explains why Richie kidnaps John, but doesn't explain why he killed all those innocent people. A hit-man is a paid assassin, not a serial killer. So was Richie a hit-man with a screw loose? And therefore was a serial killer rather than a hit-man? Or was he both? Answers on a postcard please.......The most ridiculous thing about this whole situation is when Richie said he couldn't kill John because he saw something in him, something in his eyes. This implies Richie has some sort of conscience, but again the fact that he kills lots of innocent people whom he doesn't know ultimately contradicts this? To say the narrative was messy in this film would be an understatement. Is it just me or did the police in this film seem to do no detective work whatsoever? They suspect that John is responsible for all the killings because he has a row with his wife and loses his job. Personally, I wouldn't even class this as 'circumstantial evidence' never mind 'actual evidence' or a 'motive'. What about forensics, fingerprints, ballistics, autopsies or post mortems? I could go on, but I think I've made my point.The only positive thing about this film is Samuel L Jackson. He was terrific and was far better than the material that he was given. I honestly don't know what an actor of his calibre was doing in this mess. Did he even read the script? Everyone else put in a decent performance, but all the actors were let down by some truly woeful writing.

Rich Wright The concept of an everyday man befriending a nutcase who proceeds to create chaos all around them, thus implicating the innocent bystander too is not an uncommon one: other examples of this plot include Piggy and Bad Influence. Or for a more lighthearted take, try Something Wild. And it's a well known fact that 1 movie in 5 these days features Samuel L Jackson, so we were bound to cross paths on my Random DVD Pilgrimage. I'm still looking for sponsors, ya know.So, how does Meeting Evil fare? Well, it doesn't leave the audience very long as to the Jackson character's personality. From his first appearance, we see him step out of his car with an all black ensemble on and an evil glimmer in his eyes... then the bodies start piling up. Someone chewing gum while on duty at a gas station? Kill them! A girl refuses to let you use a free payphone at her office? Bludgeon her to death! And so on... for the most minor of infractions, all who meet with his disapproval meet the same fate. And guess who winds up being the cops No 1 suspect? Clue: It's not the snappy dresser!Yep, Luke Wilson is the family man dragged along for the ride, in this very violent thriller which could only escape with a 15 certificate because most of the bloodshed takes place off-camera. It doesn't abound in great psychological studies either, Jackson just kills... because he feels like it. He starts off menacing, but by the end his activities have become so far-fetched he starts to resemble a parody of himself. There's also a noticeable lack of depth... because all the focus is on Jackson and his antics, the other participants get short changed. There's a slight twist at the end which changes hardly anything... Then the lights go out. End of movie.I felt hollow while it was on, and pretty much unmoved afterwards. Routine stuff, really. 5/10

garman-productions This movie starts out somewhat interesting with SLJ playing his standard menacing character by rote. But the character played by Luke Wilson makes one mystifying decision after the next, defying logic and common sense. I can never understand why lousy writing such as seen in this movie gets a regular pass by the producers of so many movies. Maybe they don't even actually read the scripts and just are interested in "demographics".And the two detectives are more than bumbling; they are boring too. In an unintentional comedic bit of casting/writing; the two actors playing Luke Wilson' children, a boy and girl, look nothing like the parents and play deadpan throughout their on screen time. Even if they are supposed to be adopted, one would expect some emotion from them but it rarely shows.The alleged "twist" at the end is thrown in there along with the rest of the ridiculous inexplicable plot devices. Thus, a noisy nonsensical waste of time all around.

Retro21 Sometimes you see films where the writers throw tried and tested plot elements together in the hope it will make a good film. This was a good example of that.It was over the top in a number of places, scenes and circumstances unlikely enough to make it unbelievable. The acting is poor, the police come across as unlike-able and smug, every supporting actor is an exaggeration of a normal person and Wilson is always 'acting' - you never believe he is the person he's meant to portray. Jackson is not bad in the role, but he's just playing a meaner character we've seen a hundred times (probably literally with the amount of films he's been in). Kudos to Peyton List who was decent in an otherwise disappointing film.