Reviews

I spent an hour waiting to find anything I liked. This movie is another example of an emerging trend in Hollywood: find a name star(s) to save a dismal project.

I guess I've seen too many cop pictures, but the whole thing here is old. I can think of at least 6 flicks with a similar plot line...throw in a couple kinks and bingo! you have a great movie.

Wrong!

The formula needs rethinking.

If you are looking for something to fill time until you watch an interesting movie, this is the perfect vehicle.

The oldest Hollywood flower, i.e., hire big names to fill in for an empty story, is in full bloom here.

The ending is an excuse to have a silly slasher movie with John, Ray and Amanda all participating.

This is a "take the money and run" effort for each of them that they will never point to as a great example of their skills.

The whole concept is about as old as dirt, but lets try to mystify the audience with psycho mumbo-jumbo at the end.

Instead of watching this movie, put on pair of comfortable shoes and go for a walk. You will be better for it.

I never appreciated Jim's ability until this movie. He should be cast in more dramatic leads and get away from the Ace Ventura crap.

It is a bit hokey. But it tells a story in a compelling way.

I suspect it didn't get more exposure because it's message was a bit anti-conservative,and with conservatives controlling the U.S. media these days, the idea of stifling free speech other than the conservative message didn't sit well.

This effort is worth 90 minutes of your life. As fiction, no, but as a true story, yes. An arsonist is on the loose and the investigation leads to an unlikely suspect. This old Hollywood line ties into the ending. I will leave it there.

Ray Liotta and John Leguizamo are the focus characters and lesser actors would have made this less interesting.

Other comments saying the story doesn't tie together neatly ignore the fact that real crime seldom is neatly packaged. Juries often convict(correctly) on evidence which doesn't all fit into place. Hollywood needs tidiness but the truth often is less than what Hollywood needs.

It's lurid enough to keep the under 35 crowd awake and thoughtful enough to keep the rest of us thinking.

I remember when Wayne Williams was arrested for serial murders in Atlanta. The number of similar murders dropped to near zero when he was put in prison.

I reached a point where the thought "I wonder what's on the Weather Channel?" popped into my head.

Does that tell you how unfunny this movie is?

I will give any movie William H. Macy is in a look. What a waste of a truly talented actor.

This shows you why "All-Star" events often aren't that entertaining. No one is in the situation they normally work in, and the result often is a dull mish-mash.

Save yourself some boredom and go watch the Weather Channel.

Ignoring the visuals for a moment, De Palma's story was a like a car wreck: everything was going fine until the driver fell asleep. De Palma fell asleep writing the story. He had a great beginning. The heist was new(and erotic). He had a thriller going. Then came the bathroom scene, the twist, and then BOOM! back to the present. He left behind the main plot: the heist and the loot. In between was this David Lynch-going-nowhere plot which was only saved by a 1980's "Dallas" style retrieval. I also have a difficult time with main characters who are always in control. Rebecca was a little much. Antonio could have been a larger part of the story.

This isn't brilliant. It's above average. Not much more.

I thought the acting in this film(except for the lead actor) was some of the worst I've seen. It reminded me of a high school drama production with a videocam. IF the scenes in jail/prison were actually shot there with real inmates, then they can be excused. This isn't a documentary; it's portrayed as fiction. I followed the exploits of the lead character with some interest. The others around him were almost cartoons. Having never been inside,I can't say the story is anywhere near accurate. It SEEMED to be accurate to those of us who have never had the misfortune of being jailed. Here's some things to ponder: in the opening the cops are banging in the door as the drug bust in going down. The partners are all together. We see the lead get busted as he comes out the door. So where could he stash 300K in that length of time where his two partners also wouldn't have known about it?

In the end when he is out,(this is, I presume, eight years later) he gets the money(so well hidden in 60 seconds eight years before that no one found it by accident in 8 years, including the police) and heads over to "his place". Keep in mind his female friend doesn't live with him anymore. So, who has a place just sitting there for eight years? He didn't pay taxes, etc. and it would be confiscated.

Rewind the shooting scene at the home and see if any of this acting adds up to an Oscar. It reminded me of the level of acting in a porn film(so did the set). So, he shoots a cop and drives nine hours unmolested to cross the U.S. Mexican border. Certainly the authorities would never put out an advisory.

Overall, it kept my interest, but I felt the effort to make it "real" made it look "unreal".

I enjoyed this movie. I guess that's the only barometer of its worth. The production took upon itself to mostly accurately portray life in 1873. Its modern counterpart was less successful. The story is about death, back when and today. I don't think there was an intent to try to run parallel story lines as some others contend. Two stories were bridged together by the curiosity of one character. The modern segment of this bi-drama(pun intended) lost something by the in-heat performance of Elizabeth Hurley. She is such a knockout that you forget she's acting. Sean Penn's character had the most potential, but they left much about him on the plate. I thought the sexual tension of the modern characters was a bit much. While a weekend can sometimes be interesting, it was clear from the start it would be some kind of weird tryst nearing the scene. All of it could have been suggested without going there. The modern unearthing of an old murder was quite enough without the need to try for the "R" rating. I judge a movie by how interested I am to see the ending. This movie held me the entire time. An award winner? No. Interesting? Yes.

Sandra Bullock is best when she plays Sandra Bullock. When she tries to be serious she never quite pulls it off. I wasn't either happy or disappointed with this flick. Somewhere it just unraveled. I've seen several movies like this where teens plot to kill for fun. I found the police investigation silly. Somewhere the editors must have decided the film was too long and cut out a large section of the investigation. The police went from close to baffled and looking in the wrong direction to placing two relatively unknown kids as the prime suspects. What led to this decision? Maybe I fell asleep during that part, but wouldn't you need some kind of evidence to lead you there? It had it's moments. The actual police investigation was clever. Bullock's past life which shapes her present was presented in such a quick manner that they could have left all of it off, as it really had nothing to do with the main plot. I always judge whether I like a movie by whether I would see it again. Not this one.

Had to drop in another comment. I really appreciate a wide range of views. The only people who seemed to like this movie sneer at the others as if "they" weren't capable of seeing the deep "insight" Lynch has. What David Lynch is is a cinematic con man. Disneyland on a large screen. He beautifully photographs a bunch of images and tries to deceive you into thinking there's a story there. To all of you who loved the movie and thought the rest of us dumb, please explain the plot to all of us unenlightened ones and how it ends. It's nice to know there's so many smart people out there in a world where art is in the eye of the beholder. Please spare us your college-level pseudo-intellectualism and simply tell us: What is the story? What is the point?

Others will describe the details of the movie but I must tell you one scene which is somewhat unrealistic. A close relative is Type-1 diabetic. I have seen the situation with the low-blood-sugar daughter many times. While closer than many Hollywood attempts, here's my experience with someone whose blood glucose has dipped below 40. They get very combative, not compliant. Once the blood sugar drops to the point of being in convulsions, the person doesn't "come back". The spell doesn't pass. The blood sugar keeps getting lower and lower until coma. The shot Forrest W. administers was mostly right, except for a few small details. At the blood sugar she was at, the daughter likely would not have been able to help him at all. Didn't you find it odd the prior owners would build this room and not put any food in it? Especially candy or other carbohydrates? There's plenty of Type-1 diabetics around to help Hollywood get it right. Most productions I've seen always get it wrong.

The two lead actors saved this sorry story. I like John Woo films, but there reaches a point where fantasy action scenes aren't enough. If I had a weapon like these guys were shooting...eventually I would place one bullet(by accident) on target. It seems Woo thinks his heroes are made of Kevlar. The story had it's points. The assassin's second thoughts on his main hit brought out a good story line. Sorvino's character always was in good makeup even after some greasy action scenes. I love action movies. But there has to be at least a small amount of reality built in to make the movie interesting and not a cartoon.

I was a Twin Peaks fan. I thought the whole idea of wierdness in a small town was unique. Slowly, Lynch ruined a really good idea with self-indulgence. I swore I would never go back to his stuff. I saw M. Drive and rented it. Now I want my money back. Yes, I must be one of those "logic" freaks who wants a story. Apparently you can put together a series of wierd scenes and call it a movie. They already did that. 30 miles from where I live they filmed "The Giant Spider Invasion". That was wierd scenes put together, too. It made me laugh. This didn't. David Lynch is a master of visuals. No doubt. But when you tell a story, apparently his rules say you can tell a story for MORE THAN TWO HOURS and then say, "Oops, I guess I didn't have anything to say" and walk away. The photography, even on video, was outstanding. The two female leads are incredibly beautiful. I will leave it there. I also must admit the love scenes are memorable. This is along the line of "Natural Born Killers" but Oliver Stone's movie is much better, storywise. Rent this if you want to have one of those on-going college-style discussions that lead to nowhere, which is what this movie, from my view, is all about.

Odd reading the reviews. Obviously many viewers of this movie have never lived in a world like Beverly Donofrio. Sorry to relate this, but the author was trying to tell you she wasn't perfect. We are so used to seeing Hollywood put a nice smile and perfect ending on stuff, it's nice to see one where life, for the most part, sucks. I could relate several stories similar to this one. Sorry the movie ruined your reality. Try some video games. Penny Marshall captured a world I've seen much of my life. Drew actually played three different characters in this movie. She was convincing as a 15 year old...22 year old...35 year old. Could Halle B., the Oscar winner, pull this off? I thought this was one of Drew's better performances. Overall, this was a movie which allowed me to relate to the characters. It was a very human movie, with flawed people, who simply want to find something better, be it college, or another trailer. Three stars out of four.

I laughed, repeatedly, during this movie. I also laughed, repeatedly, at the people who hated this movie. Please, get a life! This was a romp designed to showcase some talented people. It was not intended to be analyzed like "Citizen Kane". "Blazing Saddles" was the last movie of this type where I enjoyed a few good belly laughs. What is so incredible is how some folks took this movie so seriously. The idea was unique, and the satire using endless cameos of stars was really above par. The subtle message about the clothing industry also left a mark. America loves cheap labor. Apparently, America also has no sense of humor. Just kidding!

This movie pleasantly surprised me. It has a touching, slightly off-center approach that never loses your attention. This is a movie I never heard about, but if you want a "sleeper", this is it. Great writing, production, and acting. I highly recommend it for audiences who want something thoughtful. Nick Nolte, Sheryl Lee and Alan Arkin are marvelous. Why wasn't more made of this movie?