If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Admirable film.

Absolutely the worst movie.

That's probably the hundreth DIE HARD rip off existing. Nothing new. Many elements of the John McTiernan's masterpiece are here, including, the supposed good guy, the hero's supposed allie who eventually happens to be the bad goons sidekick. That's Simply a delicious piece of Junk, crap, corny at the most. Delicious because I was not bored at all, it was a good time waster for me. Paul Tanter remains the same but that's good enough for me. He has never been worse or better and I guess he never will either.

Did not expect much in the first place before watching 'Kill Ratio'. It sounded interesting, but it did look like a not very well made, ridiculous and by the numbers film with not particularly good actors. Saw 'Kill Ratio' anyway out of curiosity, being intrigued by the idea and having been a lot of low-budget films recently (most not very good to put it lightly). 'Kill Ratio' turned out to be more or less, make that exactly even, what was expected. Except worse. It started off pretty well, giving off the sense that maybe the film won't be bad and be better than it seemed. This didn't stay for long though and it is something of a shame. After the opening, the film went down south catastrophically very quickly and never recovered or improved. Actually got pretty much worse as it progressed. On a visual level, 'Kill Ratio' looked shoddy. Drab and simplistic, with haphazard editing, far from slick photography and very artificial-looking and overused to the point of abuse effects/CGI.The sound/soundtrack are intrusive and obvious and the direction has no sense of atmosphere or pacing, nothing to be thrilled by and nothing much engaging.Script is awkward-sounding and ponderous, with lines that do make one cringe. A lot of it is gibberish and juvenile, with a stilted improvisatory feel that shouldn't have made it past draft stages. On top of that, the story goes through the motions with no tension, suspense or thrills, a lot of intelligence-insulting ridiculousness, implausibility and pacing so dull that it makes a reasonably short length much longer. The action sequences are more preposterous and by the numbers than they are thrilling or fun, a big problem for a film so heavy on this aspect. The terrible way they look also hinder them.Characters are basically every stereotype in the book it seems and are one-dimensional caricatures with no likeability or development and with the inability to behave logically. The acting is very poor all round with a very uncharismatic lead for one. In summary, bad film in almost every way. 2/10 Bethany Cox

James Henderson (Tom Hopper) works as a liaison or fixer, at an up scale Hotel in an Eastern European nation with huge mountains. He lets us know "Cynicism is a sign of intelligence and age." A coup erupts and overthrows the democracy. It operates out of the same hotel. Through a weird plot twist the injured president (Lacy Moore) is hiding out there with the plucky hotel manager Gabrielle Martin (Amy Huberman). She had no idea James is ex-CIA or something not really established, except that he has "kill ratio" an unlimited amount of people he is authorized to kill by....someone.Yes only Tom Hopper stands between Democracy and military dictatorship by defeating a small army in the corridors of a hotel. Amy Huberman had a good character and did well with her lines. There were a lot of positives to the film including dialogue and negatives including dialogue, especially the line, "Lower your weapons. They're civilians." Seriously? In Eastern Europe? The entire production is filmed inside of the hotel, except for that one scene where James steps out for a cigarette. The movie was somewhat entertaining, but uneven. Soft 3 stars.Guide: F-word. Attempted rape. Nudity (Michelle Lehane)

I do not like dishing out negative feedback in these reviews but I find it very difficult in all truth to find good points about this film which is sad and disappointing in many aspects due to the plot line.Now, moving on about the plot line. On Netflix, it's short description quotes "Posing as a telecom salesman at a business conference, a CIA agent fights to protect a fledgling Eastern European democracy from a military coup." and, on IMDb it says, "An attack on the new President of a fledgling Eastern European democracy pits an American covert operative against the country's ruthless military leader determined to seize control of the government." This plot line and description to me anyway came across as interesting so, I gave it a watch… Intently for the full duration (1h 26min) and I was let-down by how it felt like the entire film was centred around a block of flats almost considering it was supposed to be as expected about a full-on military coup! Also, I found that there cast including Tom Hopper, Amy Huberman and Nick Dunning as well as many other actors didn't exactly play their roles well and to the best that could have possibly been if there was perhaps a different cast but there you are.The potential of the idea that is behind this movie could have seriously been great but I purely believe that it just fell into the wrong hands in terms of producers and directors… Steven Palmer Peterson however, the Writer… Well done because I think that this could have really been successful and been a box office hit, if it fell into the right hands.Therefore, I hereby justify that I rate this film, Kill Ratio (2016), directed by Paul Tanter and produced by the following production companies; Benattar/Thomas Productions, Parkside Pictures, Tadross Media Group and Fixer Film Productions as a 3 out of a possible 10.My rating is justified due to the lack of action, the over-exaggerated plot line/description and down to just how the idea has been handled because, as previously stated the potential for this idea and film could have been on a seriously big scale, massive in fact and the misfortune of having the listed production companies above take on this project/production.