Lucia Ayala It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

a_chinn An isolated police precinct on the last night before it closes with a skeleton crew finds itself under siege and Ethan Hawke must lead his small group of a grizzled aging police officer Brian Dennehy, secretaries Drea de Matteo and Maria Bello, and some assorted criminals in lock-up, the main one being master criminal Laurence Fishburne, who's prison transport bus had to make an unexpected pitstop. It's a great set up and John Carpenter's original film is a true classic. Carpenter's film is a perfectly executed "siege film." That original film is worthy of a remake and I do commend sequels that dare to stray from their source material, but this one strayed too far. It has the same set up, but the precinct comes under siege from form commandos and not faceless gang members, and goes even further astray when the plot drifts into double crosses and political conspiracies. The film's worst offense is that this remake forgot to be a siege film, which is what made the original so good. It seems like the characters are constantly leaving the building and the film even ends far far away the titular precinct. Despite the film's faults, Fishburne is great, as always, and Hawke is good in the lead (he actually makes a pretty good action here). I also love anything with Maria Bello. The action is decent and the film is slickly made, even if it didn't have the claustrophobic suspense that it should have.

Paul Magne Haakonsen For some reason I never got around to watching "Assault on Precinct 13" until ten years after it was released. Why? Well, I can't claim to be overly much a fan of Ethan Hawke or Lawrence Fishburne. And it wasn't until I saw it shown on TV that I actually sat down to watch this movie.There are some pretty good talents on the cast list aside from Ethan Hawke and Lawrence Fishburne; talents that include John Leguizamo, Brian Dennehy and Gabriel Byrne. I actually didn't know that John Leguizamo was in this movie before seeing him, and he alone would make it worthwhile watching.There certainly was a lot of violence throughout the movie, which does spice up the enjoyment of the movie quite a lot.And while the story was leaning towards being fairly shallow and simplistic, then some good acting performances and the action did more than weigh up for the lack of storyline.All in all, an alright crime action movie. It doesn't put your mind on any challenge, but it is still an enjoyable movie.

Michael L.S. Even in its own right, this picture is unrealistic, jaded, and all-around silly. It wouldn't merit more than four stars. However, it is in comparison to its 1973 namesake that this scam of a movie truly gets to showcase just how abysmal it is.The original was dynamic, replete with action, and almost believable. It let the acting and plot (in that order) do the work. Even today, it would earn 6-7 stars easily. This abomination though can muster neither. The acting sucks because the plot sucks, hence the need for two hot chicks and fancy explosions. I mean, when in the first five minutes we're treated to a buxom woman with a short tight skirt, fishnet stockings, and high-heeled boots, then it ain't hard to see where we're headed. And the sexual tension between the pretty shrink and the "sarge" (who looks like somebody who would've washed out of rookie training, never mind gotten several promotions) just affirms the producers' desperation.Lastly, this picture is a time and a half as long as its predecessor. Regrettably, the added 50% is mostly used for trite, utterly forgettable dialog rather than interesting plot twists or some development of the cookie-cutter, one-dimensional characters.Bonus negative points: the ultra-P.C. script (well, for the most part). True, the main protagonist is now a Caucasian unlike in the original iteration. However, the perps are all either small-time crooks or, but of course, totally innocent of any wrongdoing. No rapists or brutal murderers here! It's Rolex counterfeiters and a victimized African-American woman who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And the assailants are not some expendable, no-good hoodlums found only if the bottom of the barrel of society is scratched real hard; nope, they're police officers. Dozens of them. All corrupt and murderous... - and white. Boy, oh boy...

g-bodyl Assault on Precinct 13, which is the remake of John Carpenter's 1976 version of the same name is an entertaining action film with credible performances, cool action scenes, a nice story, and just gives you a fun time. It's not going to win any awards, but this is how you make a "B" film. I haven't seen the original so I can't compare, but this movie stands well on it's own.This film is about a cop named Jake and a few others who are about to shut down their station for good on New Year's, but when a gang of violent prisoners including a guy named Bishop arrive, they are attacked by an outside gang and these prisoners and cops must gang up together in order to survive the night.The acting is nothing special, but it's nothing bad either. Each actor gives a solid, credible performance. Ethan Hawke and Laurence Fishburne are two respected actors and I liked them in these roles often squaring off against each other.Overall, this is a solid action film. For a mid-January release, this movie is quite good. I don't know if fans of the original will like this, but action junkies will totally dig it. It's a good old-fashioned shoot-em-up. I rate this film 8/10.